2:14-mn-00001
D.S.C.Jul 9, 2015Background
- Saltzman v. Pella (filed Aug. 18, 2006) was a class action initially limited to ProLine Series windows; Architect and Designer Series class claims were not pursued in the class-certification briefing and were effectively abandoned during settlement negotiations.
- After settlement efforts and appellate proceedings, the Seventh Circuit reinstated the original named plaintiffs; Saltzman’s Architect and Designer Series claims were later transferred by the JPML to this MDL, while ProLine claims were remanded.
- Multiple individual actions concerning Architect and Designer Series windows were consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings in this MDL (transfers beginning Feb. 2014); the court has adjudicated several motions to dismiss in the individual MDL cases.
- Plaintiffs moved to (1) consolidate the MDL actions under Rule 42(a) and (2) file a consolidated amended complaint seeking to make the MDL named plaintiffs’ claims “relate back” to Saltzman’s 2006 filing under Rule 15(c), thereby avoiding statute-of-limitations defenses.
- The court evaluated whether consolidation would effect relation back and whether leave to amend should be granted under Rule 15(a), focusing on waiver/abandonment of class claims in Saltzman and prejudice to Pella from resurrecting time-barred claims.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consolidation under Rule 42(a) should be granted to achieve relation-back | Consolidation will allow MDL plaintiffs’ claims to relate back to Saltzman and preserve time-barred claims | Rule 42(a) consolidation does not merge suits or permit relation back; §1407 transfer already achieves MDL coordination | Denied — Rule 42(a) consolidation unnecessary and does not produce relation back |
| Whether MDL named plaintiffs qualify as absent class members in Saltzman for relation back | MDL plaintiffs are absent class members of Saltzman, so their claims should relate back to 2006 filing | Saltzman plaintiffs abandoned Architect/Designer class claims by not moving for certification, so MDL plaintiffs are not absent class members | Held not to be absent class members — Saltzman plaintiffs waived/abandoned those class claims |
| Whether an amended consolidated complaint should be allowed under Rule 15(a) | Leave to amend should be freely given; relation-back would save numerous claims | Granting amendment would prejudice Pella and undo extensive prior litigation, incl. statute-of-limitations defenses | Denied — amendment would prejudice Pella and is therefore not permitted |
| Whether relation back under Rule 15(c) applies through consolidation/amendment | Relation back applies if plaintiffs are absent class members or if amended pleading relates to original pleading | Relation back does not apply across separate suits or by mere consolidation; abandonment of class claims prevents absent-member relation back | Relation back not available here; consolidation/amendment do not permit relation back |
Key Cases Cited
- Intown Props. Mgmt., Inc. v. Wheaton Van Lines, Inc., 271 F.3d 164 (4th Cir. 2001) (consolidation does not merge suits or change parties’ rights)
- Arnold v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186 (4th Cir. 1982) (factors to weigh in consolidation decisions)
- Saltzman v. Pella Corp., 257 F.R.D. 471 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (class-certification proceedings limited to ProLine Series windows)
- Eubank v. Pella Corp., 753 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2014) (reinstating original plaintiffs and remanding settlement approval issues)
- In re Pella Corp. Architect & Designer Series Windows Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 996 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2014) (transfer to MDL for coordinated pretrial proceedings)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given absent prejudice, bad faith, or futility)