Rooney v. Sierra Pacific Windows

Filing 66

ORDER re 62 Discovery Dispute Joint Report #1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 7/14/2011. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2011)

1

** E-filed July 15, 2011 **

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

MARTIN F. ROONEY, individuals and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

12
Plaintiff,

No. C10-00905 LHK (HRL)
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT # 1

13
v.

[Re: Docket No. 62]

14
SIERRA PACIFIC WINDOWS,
15
16
17

Defendant.
____________________________________/
In his First Amended Complaint, plaintiff Martin Rooney (“Rooney”) alleges that he bought

18

windows from defendant Sierra Pacific Windows (“Sierra Pacific”) in 1998. Docket No. 31

19

(“FAC”) ¶ 15. He alleges that Sierra Pacific did not provide him with a copy of its written warranty

20

either before or after the sale, as it is required by law to do. Id. ¶ 16. The written Sierra Pacific

21

warranty Rooney claims he did not receive, which he calls the “SPW Warranty,” provided twenty

22

years of coverage, with Sierra Pacific paying the full cost of repair or replacement for certain

23

failures during the first ten years and paying 40% during the second ten years. Id. ¶ 12.

24

Rooney also alleges that, although he did not receive the SPW Warranty at the time of sale,

25

he did receive an order form containing a section entitled “TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF

26

SALE,” which included the following language:

27
28

7. LIMITED WARRANTY

a. Any non-tested window or door has warranty on the insulated glass and wood parts
integrity only. There is not warranty relating to the structural performance, air
infiltration or water penetration of the window or door unit.1

1
2
3

See id. ¶ 9 & Ex. A. Rooney calls this provision the “Terms and Conditions Warranty,” and he

4

alleges that it created a full warranty for all time on the windows he purchased. Id. ¶ 10.

5

Rooney alleges that he noticed problems with some of his windows in 2007, that he

6

contacted Sierra Pacific about the problems in 2009, and that Sierra Pacific refused to honor the so-

7

called “Terms and Conditions Warranty” by replacing his windows free of charge. Id. ¶ 17. Instead,

8

Sierra Pacific followed the terms of the SPW Warranty, and paid 40% of the cost of replacement

9

windows. Id. ¶¶ 17, 19. Rooney paid the remaining 60%, or $312.24. Id.
Rooney filed his initial complaint in this Court on March 4, 2010, which he later amended.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

The gravamen of his complaint is that Sierra Pacific applied the terms of the SPW Warranty, which

12

he allegedly never received, instead of applying the “Terms and Conditions Warranty,” which he

13

contends promised complete coverage with no time limitation. He alleges breach of express

14

warranty, violation of the Magnuson Moss Act, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law

15

(“UCL”), and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”). He seeks to

16

certify a class of Sierra Pacific customers who allegedly did not receive the SPW Warranty when

17

they bought windows, for whom he seeks restitution and injunctive relief. Id. ¶¶ 22, 66.
Now, the parties have filed Discovery Dispute Joint Report # 1. Docket No. 62 (“Joint

18
19

Report ”). In his words, Rooney wants “a list of putative class members including contact

20

information as well as [Sierra Pacific’s] customer service database information concerning the class

21

members and the purchase contracts (called ‘Windbid’) that [Sierra Pacific] relies upon in defense

22

of this action.” Id. at 1. Sierra Pacific objects to his request.
Upon consideration of the Joint Report, the Court DENIES Rooney’s requested relief at this

23
24

time. First, Rooney has indicated that he intends to file an amended complaint that amends the

25

definition of the putative class. See Joint Report at 9. Assuming this is true, the Court will not

26
27
28

1

Rooney did not include the second sentence of this paragraph in his First Amended Complaint.

2

1

require Sierra Pacific to provide Rooney with “a list of the putative class members” when the

2

putative class is not certain.2
Second, the Court believes that Rooney’s need for such a list is low at this point in the

3
4

litigation. Per Judge Koh’s instruction, Sierra Pacific has already provided Rooney with documents

5

containing the names and contact information of its customers who made warranty-related

6

complaints. While the number of such documents may be large, the fact is that Rooney already has

7

much of what he is asking for.
Based on the foregoing, Rooney’s requested relief is DENIED.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

Dated:

12

July 14, 2011
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Nor is the viability of Rooney’s claim certain. See Docket No. 64 (Sierra Pacific’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c)).
3

1

C10-00905 LHK (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Andrew A. August
David E. Martinek
John Laurence Fitzgerald
Kevin Francis Rooney
Meghan Marie Baker

3
4
5
6

Randall H. Davis
William Ross Warne

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]

7
8

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4