Brooks et al v. GAF Materials Corporation

Filing 98

ORDER AND OPINION denying 80 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 1/3/2013.(mbro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

Jack Brooks, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated; and
Ellen Brooks, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
GAF Materials Corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 8:11-cv-00983-JMC
ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs Jack Brooks and Ellen Brooks (“Plaintiffs”)
Motion to Alter or Amend Order and Opinion Altering Circuit Court Order Granting Plaintiffs
Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 80]. Based upon the record before the court, Plaintiffs’
Motion is denied.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A court may alter or amend a judgment if the movant shows either (1) an intervening
change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence that was not available at the time of the
judgment; or (3) that there has been a clear error of law or a manifest injustice. See Robinson v.
Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant GAF Materials Corporation (“GAF”)
asserting claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, breach of
implied warranties, fraud, violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act
1

(“SCUTPA”), and unjust enrichment arising from GAF’s sale of allegedly defective roofing
shingles. This case originated as an individual state court action commenced in Newberry
County, South Carolina in 2006 and, through various procedural and tactical mechanisms, was
again removed to this court in 2011 in its present posture as a class action suit.
Prior to removal of the action to federal court, the state court entered several orders
addressing the parties’ motions for summary judgment as presented to the state court and class
certification issues. After the removal of the matter to this court, the parties requested, and the
court granted, a status conference at which time Plaintiffs requested the court to adopt all orders
of the state court and GAF requested the court to allow a briefing schedule and/or hearing to
explore the matters of class certification and motions for summary judgment. After hearing
counsels’ positions during the status conference, the court set a briefing schedule and hearing to
address the issues of adoption of the state court orders, class certification, and summary
judgment motions. All parties filed their respective motions and responses within the timeframes
and/or extensions set by the court.
GAF filed a consolidated motion requesting the court enter an order granting summary
judgment in favor of GAF as to all claims asserted by Plaintiffs in their individual capacity or,
alternatively, for an order reconsidering and reversing the state circuit court Summary Judgment
Order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on their claims for breach of
implied warranties. The court adopted the state court orders pursuant to the standard set forth in
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Allen, 16 F.3d 568, 575 (4th Cir. 1994), and allowed GAF to “follow
the ordinary rules regarding post-judgment remedies.” Id. at 573. Ultimately, the court found
reconsideration warranted on the issue of the state court Summary Judgment Order granting
partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on their claims for breach of implied warranties
because there were genuine disputes of material fact concerning the circumstances under which
2

the shingles were purchased that precluded the court from making a conclusive determination
that the disclaimer printed on the product labels was a post-contract attempt to limit liability
under Gold Kist v. The Citizens, and Southern Nat. Bank of South Carolina, 286 S.C. 272, 333
S.E.2d 67 (Ct. App. 1985).

GAF’s motion also included a substantial argument seeking

reconsideration of the state court’s class certification order in light of the requirements for
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and such motion was supported by
affidavits and additional documentation.
In their current motion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs contend that the court improperly
converted GAF’s Rule 54(b) motion for reversal into a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend, and
that Plaintiffs never had an opportunity to address this issue. The court noted in its opinion that
the legal analysis under Rule 54(b)1 and Rule 59(e) is substantially similar. Therefore, the
court’s result would have been the same had it applied Rule 54(b) instead of Rule 59(e).
However, in its memoranda to this court and during the hearing on this matter, counsel debated
at length over the appropriate standard. Plaintiffs’ counsel elected to focus his arguments on
whether GAF had met the burden of demonstrating whether the state court order resulted in a
manifest injustice, but ignored GAF’s presentation of information in support of the heightened
class certification arguments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and dismissed GAF’s
arguments concerning clear errors of law on the implied warranty claims. This court issued an
order finding class certification inappropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 based on
the information provided to the court at the time of the hearing and further determined that there
was an error of law in the application of Gold Kist. Accordingly, it granted GAF’s request for

1

See United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999) (noting that a prior ruling in a
case may be changed under Rule 54(b) in certain circumstances including when: “(1) a
subsequent trial produces substantially different evidence, (2) controlling authority has since
made a contrary decision of law applicable to the issue, or (3) the prior decision was clearly
erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.”).
3

amendment of the state court Summary Judgment Order granting partial summary judgment in
favor of Plaintiffs on their claims for breach of implied warranties after adopting the order in
accordance with Resolution Trust. Although counsel disagreed on the applicable procedural
method, the court was guided by Resolution Trust and found Rule 59(e) to be the more
appropriate post-judgment method to address the issues raised by GAF’s consolidated motion
based on the presentation of the supporting documentation concerning class certification under
the heightened standards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and based on the fact that no
subsequent trial or appellate decision had impacted the case as would have been required for
Rule 54(b) to apply.
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Order
and Opinion Altering Circuit Court Order Granting Plaintiffs Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt.
No. 80].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

January 3, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina

4