Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
July 12, 2013, Filed
File Name: 13a0648n.06
[*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.
533 Fed. Appx. 493 *; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14170 **; 81 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 7; 2013 FED App. 0648N (6th Cir.); 2013 WL 3481582
JASON HOLBROOK, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Notice: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28 LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28 BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
Subsequent History: Summary judgment granted, in part, summary judgment denied, in part by Holbrook v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35862 (N.D. Ohio, Mar. 23, 2015)
Prior History: [**1] ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.
Holbrook v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124822 (N.D. Ohio, 2012)
warranty, court's decision, written warranty, ten-year, statute of limitations, amended complaint, installed, consumer, damages, future performance, district court, breach-of-express-warranty
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Governments, Legislation, Statute of Limitations, Tolling, Commercial Law (UCC), Remedies, Business & Corporate Compliance, Contracts Law, Types of Contracts, Express Warranties, Torts, Products Liability, Theories of Liability, Negligence, Antitrust & Trade Law, Consumer Protection, Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices, State Regulation