Play to Win, LLC v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.

Filing 85

ORDER: Defendant Statewide Mechanical's Motion for Summary Judgment 63 is denied. Statewide is therefore ordered to attend and participate in the Settlement Conference set for 7/15/2014 at 10:00AM in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Signed on 6/25/2014 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PLAY TO WIN, LLC,
Plaintiff,
. v.

Civ.·No. 6:11-cv-06294-MC

ORDER

FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC,.
Defendant AND 3 rct Party Plaintiff
V.

STATEWIDE MECHANICAL,
3 rct Party Defendant.

MCSHANE, Judge:

Forthe reasons set forth below, Third-Party Defendant Statewide Mechanical's Motion
for Summary Judgment [#63] is DENIED. Request for Oral Argument is

I-ORDER

DENI~D.

BACKGROUND
This case was filed in September of 2011, when plaintiff Play to Win filed a class action
construction product liability claim against Ferguson Enterprises ("Ferguson"), for defective pipe
fittings ("PROFLO" cross-linked polyethylene "PEX" brass pipe systems) that Ferguson
manufactured and were installed in hotels and other buildings in southern Oregon, that leaked,
causing millions in damages. The proposed plaintiff class (not·yet certified) is "Oregon residents
who own buildings in Oregon containing the PROFLO-pipe fittings made by Ferguson." [#1].

In July 2012, Ferguson filed a 3rd party claim [#28] against Statewide Mechanical
("Statewide"), the construction contractor who installed the fittings made by Ferguson. Ferguson
claims their fittings were not defective, but were instead installed improperly by Statewide.

In March 2014, Statewide filed a Motion to lift the Stay [#62], for the limited purpose of
allowing their Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) [#63] to be heard. On May 7, 2014,
Statewide's Motion was granted [#76]. On May 9, 2014, the parties participated in a Rule 16
Conference with this Court and additional briefing regarding the issues presented within the MSJ
was allowed [#78]. Ferguson responded to the MSJ in multiple filings [#67, 71, 73, 74, 75, 80].
Statewide has also been allowed to respond through multiple filings [#63, 64, 65, 66, 71, 79, 82].
A final Response (to Ferguson's Surreply) by Statewide was allowed by a separate Order [#84].
Requests for_ Oral Argument were denied [#76, 78, 84].

Having been fully briefed by all parties, Statewide's MSJ [#63] is now before}his Court.

2-0RDER

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court must grant summary judgment if there are no genuine issues of material fact
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. Fed. R.) Civ. P. 56( a). ~issue
of fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonably jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party." Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air., Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The court views the
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Allen v. City of Los Angeles, 66
F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Jesi~ger v. Nevada Federal Credit U~ion, 24 F.3d 1127,
113 0 (9th Cir. 1994)). If the moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material
fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and designate facts showing an issue for
trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,324 (1986); see Fed. R. Civ. P (56)(c).

DISCUSSION
Ferguson has shown in its responses [#67,-71, 73, 74, 75, 80] that there are indeed
genuine issues of material fact as to Statewide's potential contributory negligence. Specifically,
Ferguson's expert claims Statewide installed the fittings incorrectly, did not follow industry
standards, and did not have proper permits, etc. [#73]. If these claims are proven true, Statewide
may be liable for damages under theories of contribution and comparative negligence.
In short, this Court finds that genuine issues of material fact do exist asto Statewide's
• potential negligence and the extent to which the alleged negligence of was a contributing cause
to the damages sought by pl.aintiffPlay-To-Win under the applicable law in this case. Therefore,
Statewide's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

3-0RDER

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Third-Party Defendant Statewide Mechanical's Motion for Summary
Judgment [#63] is DENIED. Statewide is therefore ordered to attend and participate in the
Settlement Conference set for 7/15/2014 at I-O:OOAM in the chambers of Magistrate Judge
Thomas M. Coffin.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 25th day of June, 2014.

\'-

___

Michael J. McShane
United States District Judge

4-0RDER