Anthem Highlands Community Association v. Viega, Inc. et al
Filing
75
ORDER that all motions in the present case are DENIED, without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 01/14/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
ANTHEM HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION et al.,
8
Plaintiffs,
9
10
vs.
VIEGA, INC. et al.,
11
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:12-cv-00207-RCJ-CWH
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. The Court recently ruled on several similar
19
motions in a nearly identical case, Waterfall Homeowners’ Association v. Viega, 2:11-cv-1498.
20
The Court has recently consolidated the present case as a member case under Slaughter v.
21
Uponor, No. 2:08-cv-1223.
22
I.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
23
Plaintiff Anthem Highlands Community Association (“Anthem Highlands”) has filed the
24
present Rule 23 class action. Plaintiff represents its own 1232 members directly but also wishes
25
to represent up to 10,000 homeowners associations representing up to 250,000 similarly situated
1
homeowner members throughout the Las Vegas area via this class action. Plaintiff seeks
2
damages pursuant to Chapter 40 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) based upon damage
3
and potential future damage to class members’ homes arising out of the failure or potential future
4
failure of yellow brass plumbing fittings and components manufactured by “Vanguard/Viega”
5
and “Wirsbo/Uponor.”
6
Plaintiff sent its Chapter 40 notice to Defendants on June 30, 2011. Defendants
7
responded by denying liability, except for Uponor Defendants, who have not responded. Plaintiff
8
sued Defendants in this Court on February 9, 2012. Plaintiff has sued the following Defendants:
9
(1) Viega, Inc.; (2) Viega, LLC; (3) VG Pipe, LLC; (4) Vanguard Piping Systems, Inc.; (5)
10
Vanguard Industries, Inc.; (6) Viega GMBH & Co. KG; (7) Viega International GMBH; (8)
11
Uponor Corp.; (9) Uponor, Inc.; (10) Wirsbo Co.; (11) Uponor Wirsbo Co.; and (12) Del Webb
12
Communities, Inc.. Defendants 1–5 are referred to collectively herein as the “U.S. Viega
13
Defendants.” Defendants 6–7 are referred to collectively herein as the “German Viega
14
Defendants.” Defendants 1–7 are referred to collectively herein as the “Viega Defendants.”
15
Defendants 8 is referred to herein as the “Finnish Uponor Defendant.” Defendants 9–11 are
16
referred to collectively herein as the “U.S. Uponor Defendants.” Defendants 8–11 are referred to
17
collectively herein as the “Uponor Defendants.” Many of these Defendants have been sued in
18
identical class actions by the same law firms, but with different named plaintiffs.
19
The Complaint lists ten nominal causes of action: (1) Breach of Implied Warranties; (2)
20
Breach of Express Warranties (Viega Defendants); (3) Breach of Express Warranties (Uponor
21
Defendants); (4) Breach of Express Warranties (all Defendants except Viega and Uponor
22
Defendants); (5) Negligence and Negligent Misrepresentation; (6) Strict Liability; (7)
23
Declaratory and Equitable Relief; (8) Violation of Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (all
24
Defendants except Del Webb); (9) Alter Ego (Uponor Defendants); and (10) Alter Ego (Viega
25
Defendants). The nominal fifth cause of action constitutes two separate causes of action. The
Page 2 of 3
1
nominal seventh cause of action lists two measures of relief but no independent cause of action.
2
The nominal ninth and tenth causes of action are not independent causes of action but legal
3
theories relevant to the other underlying causes of action. Pending before the Court are three
4
motions to dismiss, a motion to sever, a motion to strike, a motion for leave to file excess pages,
5
and a motion to extend time.
6
II.
DISCUSSION
7
The Court has issued many rulings in the related cases that settle most of the issues in the
8
present motions. The Court has determined to consolidate the cases under Slaughter v. Uponor,
9
and the law of the case as given in any of the member cases will stand as the law of the case in
10
the consolidated cases. As the consolidation order notes, Plaintiffs’ counsel will have ten days to
11
amend both the Complaint and the motion for class certification. After amendment of the
12
Complaint to consolidate the parties and claims, the Court will adjudicate further motions, which
13
must be filed in the lead case, including any motions to clarify the preclusive effect of previous
14
rulings in the member cases. But the Court will not at this stage continue to adjudicate repetitive
15
issues in the member cases one-by-one. Plaintiffs’ counsel is the same in each case, and for the
16
sake of efficiency, the Court further encourages Defendants’ counsel to file joint pleadings where
17
possible.
18
CONCLUSION
19
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all motions in the present case are denied, without
20
prejudice.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
Dated this 14th day of January, 2013.
23
24
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
25
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?