Robert C. Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC
792 F.3d 1331
11th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff Robert Lisk contracted with a fence installer who purchased lumber from distributor Capitol, which obtained the lumber from defendant Lumber One, the manufacturer.
- Lumber One advertised and warranted its lumber as pressure-treated with MCA technology and defect-resistant for at least 15 years.
- Lisk’s fence posts rotted within three years; installer reported similar problems from other customers.
- Lisk sued in federal court under Alabama law on behalf of a nationwide class, alleging (1) violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA) and (2) breach of express warranty.
- Lumber One moved to dismiss, arguing (a) the ADTPA precludes private class actions and thus Rule 23 is displaced, (b) no privity exists so the express-warranty claim fails, and (c) dismissal would defeat federal jurisdiction.
- The district court dismissed; the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 allows a private class action under ADTPA despite ADTPA’s bar on private class suits | Lisk: Rule 23 governs in federal court; ADTPA’s class-action restriction is procedural and displaced by Rule 23 | Lumber One: ADTPA expressly forbids private class actions, so Rule 23 should not apply | Rule 23 governs; ADTPA’s class-action bar is displaced in federal court under Shady Grove and the Rules Enabling Act |
| Whether the complaint pleads an express-warranty claim that runs to remote purchasers (privity/third-party beneficiary) | Lisk: Lumber One’s warranties and marketing show intent to benefit end-users; alleges third-party-beneficiary elements | Lumber One: No privity; warranty was to distributor, not remote buyers | Complaint sufficiently alleges third-party-beneficiary status and breach; express-warranty claim survives pleading-stage review |
Key Cases Cited
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (Rule 23 applies in federal court despite state statute barring class actions for certain statutory penalties)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must allege facts making relief plausible)
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) (federal rules displace conflicting state procedural rules under the Rules Enabling Act)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (interpretation of fragmented Supreme Court decisions)
- Royalty Network, Inc. v. Harris, 756 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2014) (definition of substantive rights for Rules Enabling Act analysis)
- Harris Moran Seed Co. v. Phillips, 949 So. 2d 916 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) (manufacturer’s warranty can run to remote purchasers; third-party-beneficiary theory upheld)