Waterfall Homeowners Association et al v. Viega, Inc. et al

Filing 104

ORDER Denying, as a motion to deny class certification, 38 Motion to Strike. FURTHER ORDERED that 37 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. FURTHER ORDERED that 41 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 42 Motion to Dismiss or Consolidate is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. FURTHER ORDERED that 78 Motion to Stay is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 80 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 85 Motion to Review Magistrate Judge's Order is DENIED as moot. (See Order for details). Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 7/9/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

WATERFALL HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10

vs.
VIEGA, INC. et al.,

11

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-01498-RCJ-GWF
ORDER

12
13

This Rule 23 class action arises out of the installation of allegedly defective high-zinc-

14

content “yellow brass” (high zinc content) plumbing fittings in residences throughout the Las

15

Vegas area. Several duplicative such class actions have been filed in this District by the same

16

law firms against many of the same defendants, albeit with different named plaintiffs. Most such

17

actions have been removed from state court, but Plaintiffs filed the present case in this Court.

18

Several motions are pending before the Court.

19

I.

20

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs Waterfall Homeowners Association (“Waterfall”) and Red Bluffs at the

21

Crossings Owners Association, Inc. (“Red Bluffs”) have filed the present Rule 23 class action.

22

Plaintiffs represent their own 998 members directly but also wish to represent up to 10,000

23

homeowners associations representing up to 250,000 similarly situated homeowner members

24

throughout the Las Vegas area via this class action. Plaintiffs seek damages pursuant to Chapter

25

40 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) based upon damage and potential future damage to

1

class members’ homes arising out of the failure or potential future failure of yellow brass

2

plumbing fittings and components manufactured by “Vanguard/Viega” and “Wirsbo/Uponor.”

3

Waterfall sent its Chapter 40 notice to all Defendants except Manning on March 24,

4

2011. On April 20, 2011, the German Viega Defendants responded by denying liability. On

5

June 22, 2011, Interstate responded by claiming the notice was defective. On June 24, 2011, the

6

U.S. Viega Defendants responded by claiming the notice was defective and disclaimed any

7

liability. On June 28, 2011, Centex responded by claiming the notice was defective.

8
9

Red Bluffs sent its Chapter 40 notice to the Viega Defendants on June 11, 2011. On July
28, 2011, Viega GMBH & Co. KG responded by claiming the notice was defective.

10

Plaintiffs sued Defendants in this Court on September 16, 2011. Plaintiffs have sued the

11

following Defendants: (1) Viega, Inc.; (2) Viega, LLC; (3) VG Pipe, LLC; (4) Vanguard Piping

12

Systems, Inc.; (5) Vanguard Industries, Inc.; (6) Viega GMBH & Co. KG; (7) Viega

13

International GMBH; (8) Uponor Corp.; (9) Uponor Group; (10); Uponor, Inc.; (11) Wirsbo Co.;

14

(12) Uponor Wirsbo Co.; (13) Centex Homes (“Centex”); (14) Dynamic Plumbing Systems Inc.

15

of Nevada; (15) Interstate Plumbing and Air Conditioning, Inc.; (16) Interstate Plumbing and Air

16

Conditioning, LLC, a.k.a. Interstate Services; and (17) James Manning. Defendants 1–5 are

17

referred to collectively herein as the “U.S. Viega Defendants.” Defendants 6–7 are referred to

18

collectively herein as the “German Viega Defendants.” Defendants 1–7 are referred to

19

collectively herein as the “Viega Defendants.” Defendants 8–9 are referred to collectively herein

20

as the “Finnish Uponor Defendants.” Defendants 10–12 are referred to collectively herein as the

21

“U.S. Uponor Defendants.” Defendants 8–12 are referred to collectively herein as the “Uponor

22

Defendants.” Many of these Defendants have been sued in identical class actions by the same

23

law firms, but with different named plaintiffs.

24
25

The Complaint lists ten nominal causes of action: (1) Breach of Implied Warranties; (2)
Breach of Express Warranties (Viega Defendants); (3) Breach of Express Warranties (Uponor
Page 2 of 27

1

Defendants); (4) Breach of Express Warranties (all Defendants except Viega and Uponor

2

Defendants); (5) Negligence and Negligent Misrepresentation; (6) Strict Liability; (7)

3

Declaratory and Equitable Relief; (8) Violation of Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (all

4

Defendants except Centex); (9) Alter Ego (Uponor Defendants); and (10) Alter Ego (Viega

5

Defendants). The nominal fifth cause of action constitutes two separate causes of action. The

6

nominal seventh cause of action lists two measures of relief but no independent cause of action.

7

The nominal ninth and tenth causes of action are not independent causes of action but legal

8

theories relevant to the other underlying causes of action. Pending before the Court are three

9

motions to dismiss, a motion to dismiss or consolidate, a motion to strike, a motion to stay, and a

10

motion to review an order of the magistrate judge.

11

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

12

A.

Rule 8(a)

13

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

14

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of

15

what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47

16

(1957). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) mandates that a court dismiss a cause of action

17

that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A motion to dismiss under Rule

18

12(b)(6) tests the complaint’s sufficiency. See N. Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720

19

F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for

20

failure to state a claim, dismissal is appropriate only when the complaint does not give the

21

defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds on which it rests. See Bell

22

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In considering whether the complaint is

23

sufficient to state a claim, the court will take all material allegations as true and construe them in

24

the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th

25

Cir. 1986). The court, however, is not required to accept as true allegations that are merely
Page 3 of 27

1

conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. See Sprewell v. Golden

2

State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). A formulaic recitation of a cause of action

3

with conclusory allegations is not sufficient; a plaintiff must plead facts showing that a violation

4

is plausible, not just possible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. 662, 677–80 (2009) (citing Twombly,

5

550 U.S. at 555).

6

“Generally, a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling

7

on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. However, material which is properly submitted as part of the

8

complaint may be considered on a motion to dismiss.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner

9

& Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). Similarly, “documents

10

whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which

11

are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6)

12

motion to dismiss” without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary

13

judgment. Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994). Moreover, under Federal Rule

14

of Evidence 201, a court may take judicial notice of “matters of public record.” Mack v. S. Bay

15

Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986). Otherwise, if the district court

16

considers materials outside of the pleadings, the motion to dismiss is converted into a motion for

17

summary judgment. See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th

18

Cir. 2001).

19

B.

20

Rule 72(a) permits a district court judge to modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s non-

21
22
23
24
25

Rule 72(a)

dispositive ruling that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law:
When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred
to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct
the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the
decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after
being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not
timely objected to. The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and
modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to
Page 4 of 27

1

law.

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Local R. IB 3-1(a). “Under Rule 72(a), ‘[a] finding is “clearly

3

erroneous” when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire

4

evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’”

5

Rafano v. Patchogue-Medford Sch. Dist., No. 06-CV-5367 (JFB)(ARL), 2009 WL 789440, at

6

*12 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2009) (quoting Burgie v. Euro Brokers, Inc., No. 05 Civ.

7

0968(CPS)(KAM), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71386, at *18 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2008) (quoting

8

Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602,

9

622 (1993))). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes,

10

case law or rules of procedure.” Id.

11

C.

NRS Section 40.647

12

When a construction-defect plaintiff in Nevada has failed to file a notice pursuant to NRS

13

section 40.645 or has failed thereafter to permit an inspection and reasonable opportunity to

14

repair pursuant to NRS section 40.647(1), a court must dismiss the case without prejudice and

15

compel the plaintiff to file such a notice before filing another action. See Nev. Rev. Stat. §

16

40.647(2)(a). Section 40.645 states that a claimant must file a Chapter 40 notice “before a

17

claimant commences an action . . . .” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.645(1) (emphasis added).1 Named

18

Plaintiffs in this case filed Chapter 40 notices before filing the Complaint. The question is

19

whether the notices were adequate and whether Plaintiffs complied with the inspection and

20

repair requirements.

21
1

22
23
24
25

There is an exception to the pre-suit notice requirement for defects that “create[] an
imminent threat to the health or safety of the inhabitants of the residence,” id. § 40.670(1), but
the allegations in the present case do not implicate this exception. Plaintiffs allege that at some
time in the future the pipes in their homes may leak or fail at the joints, causing water damage to
their property. Also, if dismissal would prevent a subsequent action due to the statute of
limitations, a court must stay a proceeding pending compliance with the notice, inspection, and
repair provisions of the statutes, see id. § 40.647(2)(b), but Plaintiffs do not argue that this
subsection is implicated.
Page 5 of 27

1

D.

2

“The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,

3

Motions to Strike

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

4

E.

Personal Jurisdiction

5

A defendant may move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

6

12(b)(2). Jurisdiction exists if: (1) provided for by law; and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction

7

comports with due process. See Greenspun v. Del E. Webb Corp., 634 F.2d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir.

8

1980). When no federal statute governs personal jurisdiction, a federal court applies the law of

9

the forum state. See Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). Where a forum

10

state’s long-arm statute provides its courts jurisdiction to the fullest extent of the Due Process

11

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, such as Nevada’s does, see Arbella Mut. Ins. Co. v. Eighth

12

Judicial Dist. Court, 134 P.3d 710, 712 (Nev. 2006) (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.065), a court

13

need only apply federal due process standards, see Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015.2

14

There are two categories of personal jurisdiction: general jurisdiction and specific

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

2

Nevada’s long-arm rule restricts extra-territorial jurisdiction to the limits of both the
U.S. and Nevada Constitutions. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.065(1). However, Nevada’s due
process clause is textually identical to the federal clause in relevant respects, see Nev. Const. art.
1, § 8(5), and the Nevada Supreme Court reads the state clause as coextensive with the federal
clause, see, e.g., Wyman v. State, 217 P.3d 572, 578 (Nev. 2009). Until 1868, when the
Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment did not
apply to the states. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250–51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.).
The Declaration of Rights that comprises Article I of the Nevada Constitution, which was
adopted in 1864, was included in order to impose certain restrictions on the State of Nevada that
were already imposed against the federal government under the Bill of Rights, and the Nevada
Supreme Court has not interpreted the protections of the Declaration of Rights to exceed the
scope of their federal counterparts. Michael W. Bowers, The Sagebrush State 43–44 (3rd ed.,
Univ. Nev. Press 2006); Michael W. Bowers, The Nevada State Constitution 24 (1993). During
the Nevada Constitutional Convention in 1864, the Due Process Clause of Article I was not
debated, although several other provisions of Article I, and even Section 8, were heavily debated.
See generally Andrew J. Marsh, Official Report of the Debates and Proceedings of the
Constitutional Convention of the State of Nevada (Frank Eastman pr., 1866), available at
http://books.google.com.
Page 6 of 27

1

jurisdiction. General jurisdiction exists over a defendant who has “substantial” or “continuous

2

and systematic” contacts with the forum state such that the assertion of personal jurisdiction over

3

him is constitutionally fair even where the claims are unrelated to those contacts. See Tuazon v.

4

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1171 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Helicopteros Nacionales

5

de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415 (1984)).

6

Even where there is no general jurisdiction over a defendant, specific jurisdiction exists

7

when there are sufficient minimal contacts with the forum such that the assertion of personal

8

jurisdiction “does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Int’l Shoe

9

Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)

10

(quoting Milliken, 311 U.S. at 463). The standard has been restated using different verbiage. See

11

Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958) (“[I]t is essential in each case that there be some

12

act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities

13

within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” (citing Int’l Shoe

14

Co., 326 U.S. at 319)); World-wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980)

15

(“[T]he foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis is not the mere likelihood that a

16

product will find its way into the forum State. Rather, it is that the defendant’s conduct and

17

connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into

18

court there.” (citing Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., 436 U.S. 84, 97–98 (1978))). From these

19

cases and others, the Ninth Circuit has developed a three-part test for specific jurisdiction:

20

(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate
some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which
he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum,
thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;

21
22
23

(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s
forum-related activities; and

24

(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice,
i.e. it must be reasonable.

25
Page 7 of 27

1

Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1016 (quoting Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797,

2

802 (9th Cir. 2004)).

3

The plaintiff bears the burden on the first two prongs. If the plaintiff establishes both
prongs one and two, the defendant must come forward with a “compelling case” that
the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable. But if the plaintiff fails at the
first step, the jurisdictional inquiry ends and the case must be dismissed.

4
5

Id. (citations omitted). The third prong is itself a seven-factor balancing test, under which a
6
court considers:
7
(1) the extent of the defendant’s purposeful interjection into the forum state’s affairs;
(2) the burden on the defendant of defending in the forum; (3) the extent of conflict
with the sovereignty of the defendants’ state; (4) the forum state’s interest in
adjudicating the dispute; (5) the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy;
(6) the importance of the forum to the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective
relief; and (7) the existence of an alternative forum.

8
9
10
11

Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting CE Distrib., LLC v. New Sensor

12

Corp., 380 F.3d 107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2004)).

13

III.

ANALYSIS

14

A.

15

The Court will treat the U.S. Viega Defendants’ motion to strike the class allegations as a

Motion to Strike (ECF No. 38)

16

motion to deny class certification and deny it. As Movants note, to obtain class certification,

17

Plaintiffs must show that every requirement of Rule 23(a) is satisfied and that at least one

18

disjunctive provision of Rule 23(b) is satisfied. See, e.g., Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc.,

19

253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001). The Ninth Circuit permits class action defendants to move

20

preemptively to deny class certification rather than waiting to defend against motions to certify.

21

See Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A defendant

22

may move to deny class certification before a plaintiff files a motion to certify a class.”); see also

23

Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d 205, 210–14 (9th Cir. 1975). District courts have broad

24

discretion to manage the class certification process, including consideration of preemptive

25

motions to deny class certification in cases where discovery has not yet closed, so long as
Page 8 of 27

1

plaintiffs have had “adequate time” to conduct relevant discovery required to defend against the

2

motion. Vinole, 571 F.3d at 942. Although the present motion is labeled as a motion to strike,

3

the Court will treat it as a motion to deny class certification, because that is what the motion

4

requests in substance.

5

Movants argue that Plaintiffs have alleged only that class certification is proper under

6

Rule 23(b)(1)(A), but that class certification under this subsection of the rule is improper where

7

the primary relief sought is monetary damages. Movants are correct on the law. See Zinser, 253

8

F.3d at 1193 (“Certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is . . . not appropriate in an action for

9

damages.”). Movants are also correct that the class allegations in the present case rely

10

exclusively on Rule 23(b)(1)(A). Compare Compl. ¶ 36, Sept. 16, 2011, ECF No. 1

11

(“Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the proposed class would create a

12

risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class and

13

thus establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the class.”), with Fed.

14

R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and (b)(1)(A) (“prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class

15

members would create a risk of . . . inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to

16

individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party

17

opposing the class”). To the extent the action seeks damages, it cannot be certified under this

18

subsection. See Zinser, 253 F.3d at 1193.

19

Plaintiffs ask for twelve nominal measures of relief. (See Compl. 37–38). The first eight

20

measures of relief sought are various measures of damages, interest, fees, and costs. Damages is

21

clearly the gravamen of the action. The next three measures of relief are for declarations. But

22

such declarations will not result in inconsistent commands with respect to individual class

23

members. The first declaration Plaintiffs seek is “a declaration of the interpretation,

24

construction, and applicability of NRS Chapter 116 and NRS Chapter 40 as those statutes pertain

25

to the facts and circumstances alleged herein.” (Id. 38). The other two requested declarations are
Page 9 of 27

1

similar. These are extremely broad requests that really only ask the Court to issue an order

2

consistent with the statutes. There is no reason to fear that orders in individual cases would

3

require inconsistent actions by any Defendants. It is possible that some courts may rule that

4

certain Chapter 40 notices are sufficient while other courts rule that substantively identical

5

Chapter 40 notices are insufficient, for example. But such a result will not require inconsistent

6

actions by any Defendant under the meaning of “inconsistent” pertaining to Rule 23(b)(1)(A). A

7

Defendant can be made to act differently with respect to different class members without being

8

ordered to act inconsistently. “Inconsistent” means that a Defendant cannot possibly comply

9

with two orders simultaneously. For example, in an appropriate set of cases, two different courts

10

might order a manufacturer defendant to attach conflicting warnings to all sales of an allegedly

11

defective product. Or two different courts might order a factory to divert its waste flow in

12

inconsistent ways. Here, the only risk of “inconsistency” is that some courts may rule in favor of

13

certain plaintiffs, while other courts may rule against other plaintiffs. Defendants will be able to

14

comply with such orders simultaneously. And the preclusion doctrines will prevent any

15

conflicting money judgments as between the same parties. Finally, Plaintiffs seek “such further,

16

declaratory, equitable, or other relief . . . .” This boilerplate language does not create any serious

17

risk of incompatible standards of conduct upon Defendants if cases are separately prosecuted.

18

Plaintiffs ask not for Defendants to be made to repair the alleged defects—such that multiple

19

courts might compel inconsistent standards of conduct with respect to such repairs, i.e., multiple

20

commands of specific performance that are impossible to comply with simultaneously— but

21

rather to pay for the costs of the damages or potential future damages so that the class members

22

may have the defective piece repaired or replaced themselves (or retain the difference in value

23

without repairing or replacing the defective parts).

24

In response, Plaintiffs argue that they intend to argue for class certification under Rule

25

23(b)(3) and that they only meant to plead Rule 23(b)(1)(A) in the alternative. The Complaint
Page 10 of 27

1

clearly does not include any allegation corresponding to Rule 23(b)(3), but Plaintiffs will be

2

given leave to amend to include such allegations. It seems possible that Plaintiffs could obtain

3

certification under Rule 23(b)(3) under the present circumstances, although there will be a very

4

difficult hurdle for Plaintiffs to leap in showing that common issues predominate, because they

5

seek to represent thousands of associations, each of which must send its own Chapter 40 notice.

6

The individual facts of whether particular associations complied with Chapter 40 notice,

7

inspection, and opportunity-to-repair requirements are likely to overwhelm the common issues of

8

law. The Court will leave this issue to later motion practice, however. Movants have not asked

9

the Court to deny class certification on this basis, and Plaintiffs have not yet moved for class

10

certification at all.

11

In summary, the Court will treat the motion as a motion to deny class certification and

12

deny it. Movants also argue that Rule 23(a) has not been satisfied, but it is in fact likely that the

13

Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequate representation are

14

satisfied. Plaintiffs allege thousands of homeowners (represented by thousands of associations)

15

all suffering the same precise defects in their plumbing components as the class representatives

16

have suffered, because of the manufacture and installation of defective components by the same

17

companies. Plaintiffs also argue that the Chapter 40 notices were insufficient, but this argument

18

is best left to the separate motions to dismiss and is not appropriate in the present motion to deny

19

class certification.

20

B.

Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 37, 41, 42, 80)

21

1.

Motion No. 37

22

The U.S. Viega Defendants move to dismiss as against them. Movants correctly note that

23

the seventh cause of action for declaratory relief is duplicative of relief sought elsewhere under

24

substantive causes of action and that the claims for alter ego are not independent causes of

25

action.
Page 11 of 27

1

Next, movants argue that Plaintiffs have no associational standing to pursue the claims of

2

the homeowners they purport to represent. Movants concede that under Nevada law a

3

homeowner’s association has standing to represent its members in construction defect cases

4

under Chapter 40, including claims affecting only individual units. See D.R. Horton, Inc. v.

5

Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 215 P.3d 697, 702–03 (Nev. 2009) (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. §

6

116.3102(1)(d)). Movants argue, however, that the relevant state statute permitting such

7

representation does not guarantee associational standing under Article III. The Supreme Court

8

has noted that an organization may have standing to sue on behalf of its members when “(a) its

9

members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to

10

protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the

11

relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” See Hunt v.

12

Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). Movants argue that the third

13

requirement is not satisfied because the individual homeowners will have to participate in the

14

suit. See United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Trades No. 40 v. Ins. Corp. of Am.,

15

919 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The courts that have addressed this issue have

16

consistently held that claims for monetary relief necessarily involve individualized proof and

17

thus the individual participation of association members, thereby running afoul of the third prong

18

of the Hunt test.”). The court noted that associational standing was permitted under federal law

19

only when the relief sought was declaratory or injunctive. See id. (citing Alaska Fish & Wildlife

20

Federation & Outdoor Council, Inc. v. Dunkle, 829 F.2d 933 (9th Cir. 1987)). The court then

21

went on to examine whether California or federal law controlled the associational standing issue,

22

noting that if federal law controlled, “it is clear that individual Union members will have to

23

participate at the proof of damages stage. There is no escaping the fact that the Union in this

24

case cannot overcome the third hurdle placed before it by Supreme Court precedent.” Id. The

25

court then noted that there would not have been associational standing in that case even if
Page 12 of 27

1

California law controlled, so it affirmed the district court’s dismissal without determining

2

whether California or federal law applied. See id. at 1400–02.

3

Here, under federal law, there is no associational standing. Homeowners could assign

4

their claims to an association outright, obviating the representational standing issue, but that does

5

not appear to be the case here. Rather, the associations themselves claim standing based upon a

6

state statute permitting them to bring Chapter 40 actions on homeowners’ behalf. The question

7

therefore, is whether state or federal law controls the associational standing issue. The Court

8

finds that federal law controls. Although this is a class action based upon state law claims, and

9

substantive state law therefore controls the causes of action, standing in federal courts is a matter

10

of constitutional dimension. Federal courts simply do not have jurisdiction to rule where there is

11

no Article III standing. State law providing for standing in particular circumstances cannot

12

displace a federal constitutional requirement. It is difficult to see how the Court can escape the

13

fact that the third Hunt requirement is not satisfied in this case. The individual homeowners will

14

be required to participate in the lawsuit by providing opportunities to inspect and repair, if those

15

provisions have not yet been complied with, and at a minimum for the purpose of calculating

16

damages. Although a Nevada state court might have jurisdiction to entertain the present lawsuit

17

under state standing rules, and although this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a similar

18

lawsuit where individual homeowners, as opposed to homeowner’s associations, were the named

19

Plaintiffs and putative class members—there are in fact several such lawsuits pending in this

20

Court, and Plaintiffs’ argument that a class action here would be impossible if there were no

21

associational standing is therefore incorrect—there is no jurisdiction in federal court over the

22

present case, where homeowner’s associations seek to represent their members in an action for

23

damages. The Court will not dismiss for lack of associational standing, however, but will

24

require individual Plaintiffs to be substituted as named Plaintiffs and the class allegations

25

amended to note that individual homeowners are the putative class members, not associations,
Page 13 of 27

1

except insofar as an association wishes to vindicate its own claim based upon property to which

2

the association itself holds title.

3

Next, movants argue that Plaintiffs have no Article III standing because they allege no

4

injury in fact. Movants argue that Plaintiffs simply allege damage on information and belief

5

without alleging actual damage. But Plaintiffs have alleged actual damage. They have alleged

6

that the parts are defective and have already begun to corrode in at least a few sample

7

circumstances, even if they have not yet failed.

8

Next, movants argue that the Complaint lumps many Defendants together without

9

making particular claims against them. But it is clear from the Complaint which Defendants are

10

alleged to have manufactured and sold which brands of allegedly defective products, and which

11

Defendants are alleged to have installed them.

12

Next, movants argue that Plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing that they are a party to

13

any warranty with any Viega Defendant. Movants are correct that there is no allegation that any

14

representation of fact, promise, description of goods, sample, or model by Defendants was made

15

a basis for the benefit of the bargain as required under NRS section 104.2313 for an express

16

warranty. Plaintiffs allege only that Defendants prepared, distributed, and provided express

17

warranties based upon a presumption that certain representations were made via unspecified

18

products, catalogues, etc. Plaintiffs have not sufficiently identified any breach of an express

19

warranty but will be given leave to amend.

20

Next, movants argue that only Vanguard Piping Systems, Inc., an entity that has merged

21

into another Defendant, made any written warranty, so there are no warranty claims against the

22

other Viega Defendants. The Court rejects this argument. The company into which the

23

warrantor merged is likely liable under the warranty, as may be any alter ego or parent company.

24
25

Next, movants argue that the defunct entity Vanguard Piping Systems, Inc. expressly
disclaimed any other express or implied warranties in its express warranty. The Court will not
Page 14 of 27

1

dismiss the implied warranty claims for this reason. Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled the

2

existence of implied warranties.

3

Next, movants argue that the implied warranty of habitability applies only to builders,

4

and not to component manufacturers such as movants. But the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled

5

that in some circumstances a vendor and a builder may be joint venturers such that the vendor

6

may be liable for violating an implied warranty of habitability if it jointly agreed to build a house

7

for sale. See Radaker v. Scott, 855 P.2d 1037 (Nev. 1993). Though unlikely that Plaintiffs can

8

prove that vendor Defendants had such a joint role with any builders in this case, the Court will

9

not determine the question on a motion to dismiss.

10

Next, movants argue that Plaintiffs allege no breach of the implied warranty of

11

merchantability, because they claim no unmerchantability of the homes. Movants argue that as

12

in automotive defects cases where a car is not “unmerchantable” when an owner uses it despite a

13

defect, the homes here are not “unmerchantable” because the owners reside in them despite the

14

alleged defects. There are two primary ways in which the word “unmerchantable” arises in the

15

law. First, “goods” are “unmerchantable” under the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) if they

16

are not fit for the particular purpose for which they are designed. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2314.

17

But realty does not constitute “goods.” See id. § 104.2105. And Plaintiffs do not allege that they

18

wish to sell their plumbing fittings but cannot because of the defects. Second, title to property is

19

said to be “unmerchantable” if it is encumbered by interests of persons other than the prospective

20

grantor or there is doubt as to the prospective grantor’s title. Plaintiffs here allege no such

21

encumbrances or defects in their titles. The Court will therefore grant the motion as to the

22

implied warranty of merchantability.

23

Next, movants argue that the express warranty claims should be dismissed because

24

Plaintiffs did not comply with the Chapter 40 notice, inspection, and opportunity-to-cure

25

requirements, which should be read as incorporated into the UCC’s requirement of an
Page 15 of 27

1

opportunity to cure. However, Plaintiffs do not bring any claims under the UCC. The Court will

2

not dismiss for this reason.

3

Next, movants argue that a strict liability claim based upon alleged defects in homes or

4

components is not viable under Nevada law. A building itself is not a “product” for the purposes

5

of strict liability in Nevada. See Calloway v. City of Reno, 993 P.2d 1259, 1272 (Nev. 2000).

6

[W]hen a heating and plumbing system damages the building as a whole, the
building has injured itself and only economic losses have occurred.

7
....
8
9
10
11
12

The damage caused by the allegedly defective framing therefore constituted
damage to the structures themselves—no “other” property damage resulted, and
appellants suffered purely economic losses. Because of the alleged construction
defects appellants failed to receive the benefit of their bargains; the defects resulted
in a lower standard of quality than that expected. Such inferior workmanship, which
leads to building deterioration, is not properly addressed by tort law. In such
circumstances, the overriding policy of tort law, to promote safety, is not implicated.
We therefore discern no reason to impose, in tort law, a general societal duty to
prevent such economic losses.

13
Id. at 1268–69 (citation omitted). Calloway has been overruled in light of Chapter 40 to the
14
extent it held that a negligence claim is not viable in a construction defect case, see Olson v.
15
Richard, 89 P.3d 31, 33 (Nev. 2004), but Calloway’s holding that strict liability is not available
16
based upon property damage to the building itself due to a defective component of the building
17
itself has not been overruled. The Court will therefore dismiss the strict liability claims, without
18
leave to amend.
19
Next, movants argue that Plaintiffs have not pled negligence or negligent
20
misrepresentation under Rules 8(a) and 9(b). Movants argue that because they did not select or
21
install plumbing systems, they cannot be held negligent under the “sub-causes of action” for
22
negligent selection and installation. The Court grants the motion in this regard. A products
23
negligence action against a manufacturer is presumably viable, however, based upon the
24
manufacturer’s negligence in producing the item. Movants argue that Plaintiffs have not pled
25
Page 16 of 27

1

negligent misrepresentation with particularity. They are correct that Plaintiffs allege

2

misrepresentations without identifying them with the specificity required by Rule 9(n), alleging

3

only that certain unspecified misrepresentations were made. The Court dismisses this claim with

4

leave to amend.

5

Next, movants argue that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled negligence per se. The

6

Court notes that negligence per se is a legal theory attendant to a negligence claim and not a

7

separate cause of action. The negligence per se issue may be determined on summary judgment

8

or at trial, but it is not a separate cause of action that must be pled.

9
10

Next, movants argue that Plaintiffs make no allegations concerning a duty to warn.
Movants are correct. The Court dismisses the duty to warn claim, with leave to amend.

11

Next, movants argue that Plaintiffs have not pled a Deceptive Trade Practices Act

12

violation sufficiently or with particularity. Movants argue that Plaintiffs plead no fraudulent act

13

or representation to any named Plaintiff. Movants are correct that the language under the eighth

14

cause of action merely recites the statutes without identifying facts making a violation plausible.

15

The Court dismisses this claim, with leave to amend.

16

2.

17

Centex moves to dismiss Waterfall (but not Red Bluff) for failure to comply with Chapter

18

40’s notice, inspection, and opportunity-to-repair requirements. As noted, supra, the Chapter 40

19

notice was served before Plaintiffs filed suit. Centex challenges the sufficiency of the notice and

20

whether Waterfall gave it a reasonable opportunity to inspect and repair. The Court denies the

21

motion. The questions at issue are fact-intensive and should not be resolved on a motion to

22

dismiss where adverse dispositive facts are not evident on the face of the Complaint and are not

23

otherwise admitted. In any case, Centex’s argument that the notice was insufficient largely relies

24

on its confusing argument that an HOA itself cannot make a mass Chapter 40 notice, but only a

25

representative of an HOA, as if a corporate entity like an HOA could act except through a

Motion No. 41

Page 17 of 27

1

representative. It also notes that Waterfall cannot represent an entire class. But Waterfall can

2

represent its own members for the purposes of a Chapter 40 notice.

3

In summary, an association like Waterfall may file a Chapter 40 notice on behalf of its

4

members, but the substantive sufficiency of the notice, as well as the sufficiency of the

5

opportunity Waterfall gave Centex to inspect and repair, is a matter for summary judgment.

6

Finally, the distinction movant draws between adjoined homes and separated homes does not

7

appear to be relevant under Chapter 40, so long as the units are part of a homeowners’

8

association.

9
10

3.

Motion No. 42

The U.S. Uponor Defendants move to dismiss for violation of the anti-claim-splitting

11

rule, or alternatively, to consolidate the present case into Slaughter v. Uponor, No. 2:08-cv-

12

01223. A suit is duplicative and should be dismissed for improper claim splitting if an earlier

13

suit by the same plaintiff against the same defendant for the same claim is already pending such

14

that the eventual adjudication of the previous suit would preclude the claim in the later-filed suit.

15

See Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688–89 (9th Cir. 2007). Movants argue

16

that the rule should apply where the same law firms bring a duplicative class action on behalf of

17

the same class and against the same defendants, albeit with different named plaintiffs.

18

The Court rules that the Adams anti-claim-splitting rationale applies in the present

19

context, at least as against the Uponor Defendants. In such cases, a defendant is forced to defend

20

duplicative class actions simultaneously. Plaintiffs may pursue their claims here individually

21

(though they may not then join a class in a case with duplicative claims), but they may not make

22

Defendants defend a duplicative class action, at least not in the way they have done so here.

23

Although two groups of attorneys may bring duplicative class actions with different named

24

plaintiffs in a race towards certification, here, the same group of attorneys has brought the

25

duplicative actions, obviating the concerns in the contrary example where different named
Page 18 of 27

1

plaintiffs and their attorneys are competing for bonuses and attorney’s fees, respectively, via the

2

race to certification. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are of course not adverse to themselves, and insofar as

3

they might argue that their different sets of named plaintiffs have adverse interests in separately

4

prosecuting the duplicative actions because they are competing for class representative bonuses,

5

it is the attorneys themselves who have (potentially unethically) created this direct conflict of

6

interests between their own clients in the present matter.

7

In an appropriate case, the class of plaintiffs could be narrowly defined to include only

8

those homeowners in certain developments, such that multiple class actions against the same

9

defendants but by different groups of homeowners would not necessarily violate the anti-claim-

10

splitting rule. But here, as in the other related cases, the class is very broadly defined to include

11

every yellow-brass-aggrieved homeowner in southern Nevada. The Slaughter and Fulton Park

12

cases preclude the present class action as against Uponor Defendants. The Court will therefore

13

grant the motion to dismiss Uponor Defendants.

14

4.

15

The German Viega Defendants have moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Motion No. 80

16

They argue that there is no general jurisdiction over them in Nevada because they have no

17

property, employees, accounts, advertisements, etc. in Nevada and have not sold any products in

18

Nevada. They argue that there is no specific jurisdiction over them in Nevada because they did

19

not manufacture, design, sell, etc., the yellow brass products installed in the Waterfall and Red

20

Bluffs developments. They also argue that the they did not even own the U.S. Viega Defendants

21

(who allegedly manufactured and/or sold the yellow brass fittings) until October 2005 when the

22

Waterfall and Red Bluff developments were nearly completed. They note that Viega

23

International GmbH (a German Viega Defendant) was the sole shareholder of Viega, Inc. (a U.S.

24

Viega Defendant) until January 2012, but that Viega, Inc. did not become the sole shareholder of

25

Vanguard Industries, Inc. (a U.S. Viega Defendant) until October 2005. The German Viega
Page 19 of 27

1

Defendants note that the Waterfall property was built between 2004 and 2007, and that the Red

2

Bluffs property was built between 2003 and 2005.

3

The first dispositive question, then, appears to be whether the German Viega Defendants

4

purchased the U.S. Viega Defendants before any of the allegedly defective yellow brass

5

components are alleged to have been manufactured and sold. The wrong potentially giving rise

6

to specific jurisdiction over the German Viega Defendants in Nevada is the manufacture and sale

7

of allegedly defective yellow brass plumbing fittings. If the subsidiary companies produced and

8

sold those parts before the parent company purchased or otherwise controlled the subsidiary,

9

there is no specific jurisdiction over the parent company in Nevada based upon the subsidiaries’

10

previous independent tortious acts directed toward Nevada. Even if the Court assumes movants’

11

claims are true, however, it does not necessarily mean there is no personal jurisdiction over

12

movants. At least Waterfall, and perhaps Red Bluff, was still under construction when Viega,

13

Inc. became the sole shareholder of Vanguard Industries, Inc., which was the sole shareholder of

14

Vanguard Piping Systems, Inc. As the Court ruled with respect to the Finnish Uponor

15

Defendants in Slaughter, there is agency jurisdiction over these foreign companies. (See Order,

16

Nov. 19, 2009, ECF No. 259 in Case No. 2:08-cv-01223 (quoting Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler

17

Corp., 579 F.3d 1088, 1094–95 (9th Cir. 2009))). The maintenance of corporate formalities does

18

not overshadow the fact that this is a group of companies engaged in a common enterprise. The

19

Court denies the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

20

C.

Motion to Stay (ECF No. 78)

21

Defendant Uponor Corp. asked the Court on February 3, 2012 to stay the time for its

22

responsive pleading until fourteen days after the issuance of the mandate in the Slaughter appeal,

23

fourteen days after the issuance of the mandate in Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 59673, or

24

twenty-one days after the original deadline, whichever is later.

25

First, the Court of Appeals issued its mandate in the Slaughter case on May 3, 2012.
Page 20 of 27

1

Fourteen days from that date is May 17, 2012, which has passed.

2

Second, the Nevada Supreme Court case is a November 17, 2011 petition for a writ of

3

mandamus by Uponor Corp. asking the Court to direct the Eighth Judicial District Court to

4

reverse its ruling that it had personal jurisdiction over Uponor Corp. based upon Uponor Corp.’s

5

control over Uponor, Inc. The briefing has been complete since late April, but the case does not

6

appear to have been set for oral argument. The Court rules that the Nevada Supreme Court’s

7

ruling will be inapposite to the present case. Personal jurisdiction is based upon federal law, and

8

this Court has already ruled in the Slaughter case that the Nevada courts have personal

9

jurisdiction over Uponor Corp. based upon allegations substantially identical to those in the

10

present case. (See Order, Nov. 19, 2009, ECF No. 259 in Case No. 2:08-cv-01223).

11

Third, Uponor Corp. was served in Helsinki, Finland on January 19, 2012. (See Cert. of

12

Service, Jan. 19, 2012, ECF No. 76). The date to answer was therefore February 9, 2012. See

13

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). A twenty-one day extension would bring the deadline to March 2,

14

2012, which has passed.

15

The Court denies the motion. Under the first and third alternative requests, the requested

16

deadlines have already passed, making the motion moot in that regard. The requested deadline

17

under the second request has not passed, but the decision of the Nevada Supreme Court in that

18

case is inapposite and will not affect this Court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over Uponor

19

Corp.

20

D.

Motion to Review Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 85)

21

The U.S. Viega Defendants ask the Court to reverse the magistrate judge’s decision to

22

deny their motion to sever, which had also been joined by the U.S. Uponor Defendants and

23

Centex. Movants asked the Court to sever the claims against the U.S. Viega Defendants because

24

the claims against them“do not arise from the same ‘transaction or occurrence’ or present

25

meaningful questions of law and fact common with the claims relating to the various products of
Page 21 of 27

1

the other defendants.” Movants argued that Viega Defendants manufactured and sold different

2

products than the Uponor Defendants sold, and so the claims were improperly joined. They

3

argued that the fact that the products (plumbing fittings) were similar and that the alleged defects

4

(dezincification of yellow brass causing leaks and failures) were similar, that the standard for

5

joinder under Rule 20(a)(2) was not satisfied.

6

Rule 20(a)(2) permits the joinder of defendants in a single action if any claim is asserted

7

against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative arising out of the same transaction or

8

occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences, and if any question of law or fact in common

9

to all defendants will arise in the transaction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)–(B). Under Rule 21, a

10
11

court may sever misjoined parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.
Movants argue that joinder of defendants is not appropriate in the present products

12

liability/construction defect case simply because multiple defendants have manufactured and

13

sold the same kind of component with the same kind of alleged defect. In such cases, they argue,

14

there is no common transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences. The

15

Viega products and the Uponor products are not identical metallurgically or in design and were

16

manufactured according to different industry standards. They are simply alleged to have a

17

common kind of defect. Movants argue that joining Defendants because of the common kind of

18

defect, when the designs are different, may cause jury confusion. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not

19

alleged that the Viega Defendants acted jointly with the Uponor Defendants, or that the Viega

20

and Uponor Defendants are liable in the alternative. Rather, they allege that Viega Defendants

21

are liable for harm caused by defective components installed in Vanguard homes, and that

22

Uponor Defendants are liable for harm caused by defective components installed in Wirsbo

23

homes. The two sets of Defendants should therefore, Movants argue, be severed, because the

24

allegation that all the harm arises out of similar components is not sufficient to permit joinder of

25

Defendants under Rule 20(a)(2). Movants note that the judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Page 22 of 27

1

(“JPML”) has severed three yellow brass cases based upon the identity of the allegedly defective

2

product.

3

The magistrate judge disagreed and denied the motion to sever. The magistrate judge

4

noted that “Rule 20 ‘is to be construed liberally in order to promote trial convenience and to

5

expedite the final determination of disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits.’” League to

6

Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977) (quoting

7

Mosley v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974)). The magistrate judge noted that

8

under Mosley, the Eighth Circuit follows a “logically related” test, and that the Ninth Circuit had

9

cited Mosley in approval. Because the claims against the Viega Defendants were at least

10

logically related to the claims against the Uponor Defendants—the Court agrees—the magistrate

11

judge denied the motion to sever.

12

The magistrate judge rejected Defendants’ argument that the Court of Appeals had

13

adopted a stricter standard than the Eighth Circuit’s “logically related” test in Coughlin v.

14

Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348 (9th Cir. 1997). In Coughlin, the Court of Appeals affirmed a district

15

court’s decision to sever. Defendants argued that the Court of Appeals based that holding upon a

16

reading of Rule 20 that mere similarity of claims was insufficient for joinder of Defendants

17

where there was no actual common transaction or series of transactions. In Coughlin, the district

18

court had severed multiple plaintiffs because:

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

the mere allegation of general delay [in processing immigration-related petitions] is
not enough to create a common transaction or occurrence. Each Plaintiff has waited
a different length of time, suffering a different duration of alleged delay.
Furthermore, the delay is disputed in some instances and varies from case to case.
And, most importantly, there may be numerous reasons for the alleged delay.
Therefore, the existence of a common allegation of delay, in and of itself, does not
suffice to create a common transaction or occurrence.
Id. at 1350. The Court of Appeals affirmed, because:
These findings, and the district court’s order granting severance, square with Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 20 and 21 and the precedent on severance. See, e.g., Saval,
710 F.2d at 1031–32 (rejecting argument that allegations of fraud and common
Page 23 of 27

1

5

warranties satisfies the first prong of the joinder test); Harris v. Spellman, 150 F.R.D.
130, 132 (N.D. Ill. 1993); Papagiannis v. Pontikis, 108 F.R.D. 177, 178–79 (N.D.
Ill. 1985) (joinder of plaintiffs not proper even though nature of defendant’s alleged
misrepresentation to each plaintiff was similar and each plaintiff claimed violation
of the same federal law); Heath v. Bell, 448 F. Supp. 416, 418 (M.D. Pa. 1977)
(joinder of federal inmates alleging that the United States Parole Commission was
applying its guidelines unlawfully not proper because “the mere fact that a parole
decision is involved is not enough of a connection to satisfy the same transaction
requirement”).

6

Id. at 1351–52. This case appears to support Movants’ argument. The Court of Appeals appears

7

in Coughlin to have opined that similar harm is not sufficient to join plaintiffs in a single lawsuit

8

under Rule 20 where the plaintiffs’ cases share a “fact pattern” but no facts.3 Presumably, the

9

same standard applies to the joinder of defendants, because Rules 20(a)(1) and 20(a)(2) use

2
3
4

10

parallel language. Of course, the joinder of plaintiffs under Rule 20 is not an issue in Rule 23

11

actions because Rule 23 implicitly displaces Rule 20 as to the joinder of Plaintiffs, but nothing in

12

Rule 23 appears to obviate the Rule 20 standards for joining defendants.

13

The magistrate judge also cited to a case where joinder was held appropriate on appeal

14

because all plaintiffs had alleged a defect in the same product made by the same manufacturer,

15

despite the fact that the defect manifested itself in slightly different ways from plaintiff-to-

16

plaintiff. See Abraham v. Volkswagon of Am., Inc., 795 F.2d 238, 240, 251 (2d Cir. 1986) (citing

17

7 Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1653 (1972)).

18

The magistrate judge wrote that “[d]istrict court decisions have relied on Abraham in upholding

19

the joinder of product liability claims against a manufacturer or distributor, even though the

20

individual plaintiffs’ injuries and damages resulting from the alleged defect may differ.” But

21

that is not all Plaintiffs seek to do here. Plaintiffs seek to join not only similar, though slightly

22

varying, harms arising out of the defects of a single manufacturer’s product, as in Abraham.

23
3

24
25

Coughlin referred to Mosley only in citing the standard of review pertaining to Rule 21
motions. See id. at 1351. It did not, as the magistrate judge wrote, approve of the “logical
relation” standard of Mosely, but appears to have rejected it in substance without invoking it by
name.
Page 24 of 27

1

Rather, they seek to join two different manufacturers with two different products who have no

2

apparent contractual, agency, or other relationship. The precedents would support the joinder of

3

Plaintiffs against either the Viega Defendants or the Uponor Defendants—although this question

4

is obviated by a Rule 23 action—but the precedents do no support the joinder of all such

5

Plaintiffs against both sets of Defendants.

6

Next, the magistrate judge relied in part on a pre-2007 unpublished district court case

7

from another district, which case may not be cited in this Circuit. See Ninth Cir. R. 36-3(c).

8

Finally, the magistrate judge disagreed with the district court’s severance of defendants in

9

Graziose v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 202 F.R.D. 638 (D. Nev. 2001) (Hunt, J.). In that case, ten

10

plaintiffs sued ten defendants for harm allegedly caused by an ingredient in certain medicines the

11

defendants had manufactured. See id. at 639. Judge Hunt granted a motion to sever plaintiffs

12

based upon Coughlin. See id. at 640 (“The purchases/ingestions of the medications in question

13

clearly did not arise out of the same transaction or a series of transactions. They occurred at

14

different times. The medicines were different. The retailers were different. The manufacturers

15

are different.” (emphasis added)). “The only concrete similarity among the various Plaintiffs are

16

that they (or their spouse[s]) took a medicine containing PPA as an active ingredient, and they

17

allegedly suffered an injury. This is insufficient to justify joinder of these Plaintiffs and their

18

claims.” Id. The present case is analogous to Graziose. The only concrete similarity among the

19

Viega and Uponor Defendants is that they manufactured and sold components containing yellow

20

brass, and Plaintiffs allegedly suffered injuries. The components and precise metallurgical

21

compositions were different. The retailers were different. The manufacturers are different. This

22

is insufficient to justify joinder of these Defendants. In summary, the Court rules that the

23

magistrate judge erred in denying severance to the Viega Defendants. However, because the

24

Court dismisses the Uponor Defendants under the anti-claim-splitting rule, the present motion

25

will be denied as moot.
Page 25 of 27

1
2

IV.

THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA MDL ORDER
Plaintiffs in a related case have filed a motion asking the Court to stay the case based

3

upon an order (the “Order”) by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (the

4

“Minnesota Court” or “MDL Court”) enjoining and staying all actions involving Uponor F1807

5

yellow brass fittings. The Order was entered on January 19, 2012 and is attached at Exhibit 1 to

6

Motion No. 54 in Case No. 2:11-cv-1424. The MDL Court approved a settlement, subject to a

7

final fairness hearing after an opt-out notice procedure. The MDL Court approved two

8

settlement classes, one for those whose F1807 systems have already leaked, and one for those

9

whose F1807 systems haven’t yet leaked. The settlement classes include all persons in the

10

United States that own or have owned structures that contain or have ever contained ASTM

11

F1807 style plumbing systems manufactured or sold by Radiant Technology, Inc. or Uponor,

12

Inc. (and their predecessors) installed on or after May 15, 1999. (See Order 3–4, Jan. 19, 2012,

13

ECF No. 54, Ex. 1, in Case No. 2:11-cv-1424). The MDL Court ordered:

14

16

that any actions or proceedings pending in any court in the United States involving
an RTI F1807 System, except any matters necessary to [the] implement[ation],
advance[ment], or further approval of the Agreement of settlement process, are
stayed pending the Final Fairness Hearing and the issuance of a Final Order and
Judgment.

17

(Id. 18; see id. 22). The MDL Court also enjoined class members from filing or otherwise

18

participating in any proceedings in any jurisdiction relating to the RTI F1807 system. (See id. 18,

19

22–23). The final fairness hearing has been scheduled for June 26, 2012. (See id. 23).

15

20

At oral argument on the present motions, Plaintiffs disclaimed any claims based upon

21

F1807 components or systems as identified by the MDL Court. The Court therefore need not

22

stay the present action in full or in part at this time.

23
24
25

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Strike (ECF No. 38) is DENIED as a
motion to deny class certification. However, Plaintiffs must amend the Complaint to include
Page 26 of 27

1

class allegations corresponding to Rule 23(b)(3).

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED in

3

part and DENIED in part. The Court dismisses part of the first cause of action for breach of the

4

implied warranty of merchantability, with leave to amend; dismisses the second cause of action

5

for breach of express warranty, with leave to amend; dismisses part of the fifth cause of action

6

for negligent selection and installation, without leave to amend; dismisses part of the fifth cause

7

of action for negligent misrepresentation and failure to warn, with leave to amend; dismisses the

8

sixth cause of action for strict liability, without leave to amend; and dismisses the eighth cause of

9

action for violation of Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, with leave to amend. The

10

seventh, ninth, and tenth causes of action are not independently actionable causes of action.

11

Finally, Plaintiffs must join individual homeowners as named Plaintiffs.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 41) is DENIED.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss or Consolidate (ECF No. 42) is

14

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court dismisses as against the Uponor Defendants

15

for improper claim splitting and denies the motion to consolidate the case with the

16

Slaughter case.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Stay (ECF No. 78) is DENIED.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 80) is DENIED.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Review Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF

20

No. 85) is DENIED as moot.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated this 9th day of July, 2012.
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

25
Page 27 of 27