No Fault LLC v. Stockmeier Urethanes U.S.A., Inc.
3:24-cv-00578
| M.D. La. | Sep 26, 2025Background
- This is a product liability action in the M.D. La. involving Plaintiff’s purchase and use of Defendant’s polyurethane binder, Stobielast® S 136, in safety surfacing.
- Plaintiff alleges failures in safety surfacing across multiple sites and that the Binder was the common factor.
- Plaintiff asserted six claims including redhibition, product liability, and implied warranties, and invoked diversity jurisdiction.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) after previously denying a forum non conveniens challenge.
- The court granted in part and denied in part, preserving redhibition for economic damages but dismissing other state-law claims.
- The court declined to award LUTPA fees and denied leave to amend as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does LPLA preclude non-LPLA claims | Plaintiff argues LPLA is not the exclusive remedy for all claims | Defendant argues LPLA bars non-LPLA theories against a manufacturer | LPLA bars non-LPLA claims except redhibition for economic losses |
| Is the LPLA claim adequately pleaded | Plaintiff asserts sufficient facts show manufacturing, defect, danger, and proximate damages | Defendant contends the defect and danger theories are conclusory or insufficient | LPLA claim denied; court finds facial plausibility based on pleaded facts |
| Whether redhibition claim survives | Plaintiff alleges latent defects existed at sale and caused damages | Defendant contends redhibition claims are conclusory | Redhibition claim survives; not dismissed with prejudice |
| Attorney’s fees under LUTPA; costs | Plaintiff argues LUTPA fees should be discretionary and not awarded | Defendant seeks fees and costs as groundless/bad faith claim | Court denies fees and costs at this stage; LUTPA claim having been dismissed |
| Leave to amend | Plaintiff seeks leave to amend under Rule 15 | Amendment would be futile given LPLA exclusivity | Leave to amend denied as futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Aucoin v. S. Quality Homes, LLC, 984 So.2d 685 (La. 2008) (redhibition and latent defects; recovery against manufacturer for defects existing at sale)
- Baudin v. AstraZeneca Pharms. LP, 413 F. Supp. 3d 498 (M.D. La. 2019) (LPLA elements and unreasonably dangerous standard; exclusivity of LPLA)
- Casablanca Convertors, Inc. v. Morning Paper, Inc., 627 So.2d 699 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1993) (redhibition standard requires defects existed at sale)
- Johnson v. CHL Enters., 115 F. Supp. 2d 723 (W.D. La. 2000) (redhibition and implied warranty concepts in Louisiana law)