The fight to add additional plaintiffs to an ongoing class action lawsuit between several direct and indirect purchasers and the defendants Jeld-Wen Inc. and Masonite Corp. continues, as an opinion was filed Monday, granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss.

The suit was filed in 2018 alleging Jeld-Wen and Masonite conspired to fix prices. Together, plaintiffs allege that they bought interior molded doors indirectly, through distributors. Now they’re seeking injunctive relief under the Sherman Act, as well as under various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. An opinion was announced following an amended consolidated class action complaint (amended complaint) filed by the original plaintiffs, seeking to add additional new plaintiffs to “revive several of the previously dismissed state law claims.” The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss some of the claims in the amended complaint.

In the initial complaint, the plaintiffs asserted claims under the laws of twenty-five states where no named plaintiff lived or suffered harm—which the court said they lacked standing to pursue. The court dismissed claims under the laws of Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. According to the order, an amended complaint sought to add new plaintiffs who were residents of or sustained an injury in some of the aforementioned states.

According to the recent order, both Jeld-Wen and Masonite filed a motion to dismiss the following claims in the amended complaint: (1) the New Hampshire consumer protection claim; (2) the Utah consumer protection claim; (3) the Maine antitrust claim; (4) the West Virginia consumer protection claim; (5) the Utah consumer protection claim of named plaintiff Collin Salazar Real Estate LLC; and (6) the new plaintiffs’ damages claims outside the relevant statutes of limitations. However, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (NHCPA) applies to anticompetitive conduct that takes place outside the state’s borders, the opinion states.

Regarding New Hampshire, “In light of the statute’s ‘broad sweep,’ the plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to state a claim under the NHCPA,” a portion of the latest opinion reads. “Accordingly, the court will deny the motion to dismiss the New Hampshire consumer protection claim.”

Meanwhile, the court granted a motion to dismiss a consumer protection claim in Utah, where, according to the opinion, the plaintiffs’ plea failed to meet the standard for facts constituting unconscionable conduct.

The court denied a motion to dismiss an antitrust claim from Maine, where the defendants argued that the plaintiffs were unable to state a claim under the state’s antitrust statute based on a transaction that took place outside of that state. The plaintiffs plead sufficient facts, the court declared.

The court also denied the motion to dismiss a claim under West Virginia’s consumer protection, because the plaintiff asserted a valid claim, according to the court’s opinion.

The court further ruled that the new plaintiffs’ claims cannot “relate back” to placeholder claims in the originally filed complaint, explaining that the court lacked jurisdiction. “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) allows an amended complaint to relate back to the filing of the initial complaint when an ‘amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted,’” a portion of the order reads. “In this case, the named plaintiffs in the initial complaint lacked standing to assert the claims that the new plaintiffs now raise in the amended complaint. Thus, the court never had jurisdiction over the new plaintiffs’ claims until the new plaintiffs joined this litigation in the amended complaint.”

In the end, the court granted parts and denied parts of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, specifically dismissing the Kansas consumer protection claim; the Utah consumer protection claim; the Virginia consumer protection claim; and the damages claims outside the applicable statutes of limitations.

Leave a Reply

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