Gretchen Alexander v. Pella Corporation

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00540-DCN, 2:14-mn-00001-DCN,1:06-cv-04481 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999813407]. [15-1828]

Appeal: 15-1828

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1828

GRETCHEN ALEXANDER, on behalf of herself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PELLA CORPORATION, an Iowa corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:14-cv-00540-DCN, 2:14-mn-00001-DCN, 1:06-cv-04481)

Submitted:

April 29, 2016

Decided:

May 5, 2016

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel K. Bryson, WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP, Raleigh, North
Carolina; Gary Edward Mason, WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Michael T. Cole, NELSON MULLINS
RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina; John P.
Mandler, Aaron D. Van Oort, Nicholas J. Nelson, FAEGRE BAKER
DANIELS, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1828

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gretchen

Alexander

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

dismissing her civil suit as untimely and denying her Fed. R.
Civ.

P.

59(e)

motion

to

reconsider

and

vacate

judgment.

Alexander’s suit was part of the multidistrict litigation (MDL)
involving

windows

Alexander

chose

class

action

dismissed
statutes

manufactured

to

litigate

against

Pella

Alexander’s
of

her
was

claims

limitations.

by

Pella
claims

Corporation
individually

pending.
as

barred

Alexander

then

The
by

(Pella).
while

district
the

filed

a

a

court

applicable
motion

for

reconsideration seeking to have her judgment vacated so that she
could consolidate her case with the main case proceeding in the
MDL,

Saltzman

v.

Pella

Corp.,

2:14-mn-00001-DCN

(D.S.C.)

and

amend the Saltzman complaint to add claims that would relate
back and avoid the timeliness issues of her own complaint.
district court denied the motion for reconsideration.

The

Finding

no error, we affirm.
This court generally reviews de novo the district court’s
grant of a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds.
Cruz v. Maypa, 773 F.3d 138, 143 (4th Cir. 2014).

We review the

denial of a Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of discretion.

Mayfield

v. Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378
(4th

Cir.

2012).

Alexander

argues

that

the

district

court

should have tolled the statute of limitations as it applied to
2

Appeal: 15-1828

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/05/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

her claims so that they could be deemed timely when consolidated
with Saltzman;
Saltzman
Series

that

plaintiffs

claims;

and

the

court

erred

abandoned

their

that

the

court

in

determining

Architect

erred

in

and

that

the

Designer

determining

that

Pella would not suffer undue prejudice if the motion to amend
were

granted.

Pella

contends

that

loss

of

an

affirmative

defense constitutes undue prejudice and that, further, it would
be prejudicial to Pella to have Alexander avoid the judgment
dismissing her claims after the suit had been adjudicated, and
that the court did not err in determining that Alexander was not
an absent class member.
We

have

reviewed

the

briefs

and

record

and

find

no

reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by

court.

the

district

2:14-cv-00540-DCN,
Apr. 21

&

July

20,

Alexander

2:14-mn-00001-DCN,
2015). *

We

v.

Pella

Corp.,

1:06-cv-04481

dispense

with

oral

Nos.

(D.S.C.
argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

*

We note that the district court’s order denying the Rule
59(e) motion relied upon its reasons stated in its July 9, 2015
order filed in Saltzman.
We have reviewed that order in
considering this appeal.

3