• January 5, 2010

Defendant Uponor, Inc. sought the dismissal of a class action complaint against it, arguing that the complaint was insufficiently detailed (failed to meet Rule 9(b) requirements of “particularity”), that plaintiffs had failed to allege damages, that plaintiffs’ negligence-based claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine, that plaintiffs’ warranty claims failed due to the failure to attach warranties to their complaint.

U.S. District Court Judge Ann Montgomery largely rejected defendant’s motion.

Litigation arising from “pex” (cross-linked polyethylene) plumbing supplies is based on the degradation or deterioration of some plumbing fixtures used in the “pex plumbing system,” which had been touted as easier to install, cheaper, and longer lasting then copper plumbing systems.

High zinc content brass fittings to the pex plumbing systems allegedly led to “premature failings” due to “dezincification” and the systems allegedly have other shortcomings, as well.  Defendant Uponor, however, argued that plaintiffs failed to set out the “who, what, when, how, where” requirements of a fraud claim.  Judge Montgomery, however, found the plaintiffs’ allegations to be sufficient.

The motion might be considered as part of a broader trend, already noted, of early Rule 12 motions based federal courts’ more stringent pleading requirements in recent years…

McGregor v Uponor Denial in Part M Dismiss

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *