Holbrook v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

Holbrook v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

Opinion

 [*494]  ALARCÓN, Circuit Judge. Jason Holbrook appeals from the district court's decision granting Louisiana-Pacific Corporation's ("Louisiana-Pacific") motion to dismiss his amended putative class action complaint. On appeal, Holbrook claims that the  [**2] district court erred in dismissing his claims that Louisiana-Pacific violated the Ohio Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"), the Ohio Products Liability Act ("OPLA"), and the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ODTPA"). These claims are based on the alleged failure of Trimboard, an alternative to real wood trim that was manufactured by Louisiana-Pacific, to withstand normal weather conditions. We have jurisdiction to review the district court's decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate in part, affirm in part, and remand.

] We review de novo a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, 695 F.3d 531, 538 (6th Cir. 2012). "[T]o survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege facts that, if accepted as true, are sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, and to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Because federal jurisdiction is based on diversity, we must apply Ohio substantive law to Holbrook's state law claims. Hayes v. Equitable Energy Res. Co., 266 F.3d 560, 566 (6th Cr. 2001).  [**3] ] We review de novo the district court's determination of Ohio law. Andrews v. Columbia  [*495]  Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir. 2008).

Louisiana-Pacific contends that the district court's decision dismissing Holbrook's UCC breach of express and implied warranty claims should be affirmed because these claims are barred by the statute of limitations. ] "When it affirmatively appears from the face of the complaint that the time for bringing the claim has passed," the plaintiff should "'come forward with allegations explaining why the statute of limitations should be tolled.'" Bishop v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 520 F.3d 516, 520 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Hoover v. Langston Equipment Assoc., Inc., 958 F.2d 742, 744-45 (6th Cir. 1992)).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.