Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc.
1:12-cv-10164
D. Mass.Sep 22, 2015Background
- Oasis is a wood-plastic composite decking product manufactured by Deceuninck North America (DNA) and distributed exclusively by Mastic from 2004–2008; roughly 20,000 decks could be made from production volume.
- Plaintiffs (four named homeowners) allege Oasis boards suffer from a common defect (excessive water absorption causing swelling, cupping, cracking) tied to a high-talc HDPE formulation and substitution of an HDPE brand (A-Top) contrary to licensor recommendations.
- Defendants proffer competing expert opinions attributing failures to manufacturing variability (extrusion temperatures/speeds) and challenge Plaintiffs’ sampling/methodology.
- Mastic sold via multi-tier distributors; only ~10% of purchasers generated warranty claims (≈1,792 claims processed; ≈96.5% approved). Records identifying most homeowners are limited.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a nationwide four-state class (MA, MN, NY, OR). Court also resolved multiple Daubert motions addressing admissibility of expert testimony.
- Court denied class certification and denied motions to exclude the principal experts; it found conflicting expert evidence admissible and that Rule 23(a) prerequisites (typicality, adequacy, commonality) were not satisfied for the proposed class.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class certification under Rule 23 (commonality, typicality, adequacy) | A common defect (formulation-based) and common warranty/marketing claims allow classwide proof and relief for all owners in four states | Performance varies; many owners had no failures or already accepted warranty remedies; individualized proof (causation, reliance, injury, damages) predominates | Denied — plaintiffs failed to satisfy Rule 23(a) (typicality, adequacy, and commonality problems) |
| Expert admissibility (Plaintiffs’ Exponent report that Oasis has a common defect) | Exponent methodology supports a common-defect conclusion based on warranty decks and chemical analysis | Defendants argue sample bias, failure to rule out manufacturing variability; offer contrary experts | Exponent testimony admissible under Daubert; competing expert opinions go to weight, not exclusion |
| Admissibility of defense experts (Drs. Englund, Klyosov) | Plaintiffs sought to exclude as unreliable or unqualified | Defendants contend experts properly critiqued Plaintiffs’ methodology and relied on substantial data | Denied — court found defense experts sufficiently qualified and their methods reliable under Daubert |
| Ascertainability of class (identifying members) | Class membership is objective (owners of structures with Oasis), boards are laser-etched, and purchasers should recall or obtain records | Defendants emphasize indirect sales and lack of buyer records from distributors | Court found class definition sufficiently ascertainable (objective criterion) but this did not save certification due to other Rule 23 failures |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court must ensure expert testimony rests on reliable methodology and is relevant)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requires common questions capable of classwide resolution that will drive the litigation)
- In re Nexium Antitrust Litig., 777 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2015) (Article III standing for class certification satisfied if at least one class member has a plausible injury; only injured class members recover)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (rigorous Rule 23 analysis; typicality requires representative plaintiffs suffer same injury as class)
- Ruiz-Troche v. Pepsi Cola of Puerto Rico Bottling Co., 161 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 1998) (Daubert burden on proponent to show expert conclusions are methodologically sound)