This article will provide a brief overview of the facts of the TrimBoard lawsuit. We will examine the Plaintiffs and Defendants, the Class of plaintiffs, and the Date of filing. You may also find it useful to read through the plaintiffs’ brief. This article is designed to educate you on the basics of lawsuit litigation. We hope you enjoy reading the information we provide! Please share this information with others who are interested in the TrimBoard lawsuit.
Plaintiffs
In their TrimBoard lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim that Defendants breached warranties that adduced the product’s unfitness for the purpose for which it was sold. This is important because, if successful, such proof would advance the claims of absent class members. However, the Plaintiffs also contend that there was no problem with the TrimBoard’s composition and its characteristics were unchanged during all relevant periods.
The Court finds that the plaintiffs in the TrimBoard lawsuit satisfy the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a). Although the Defendants argue that the estimates they provided in support of their case are inaccurate, the evidence presented by the plaintiffs shows that at least 130 Charleston County homes are clad in TrimBoard. The court does not take into account the 171 homes that have already filed warranty claims, so the plaintiffs’ calculation is accurate.
Defendants
The Defendants in the TrimBoard suit have appealed the dismissal of a putative class-action complaint. In her suit, Bianca Ellis sued Louisiana-Pacific Corporation and Trimboard, a composite building product used as exterior trim around windows. Bianca alleged that the companies were negligent in their design and manufacturing of the Trimboard product and violated the North Carolina Uniform Defective Products Act (UDTPA).
The class-action lawsuit against LP involved claims based on defective design, manufacture, and breach of express warranty. Ellis and Srokas sued LP on behalf of other class members and appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appeal was denied because the Defendants failed to establish that the TrimBoard was defective. However, the court found that the Defendants violated the Consumer Protection Act by denying class-action relief.
Class of plaintiffs
The court finds that the Plaintiffs satisfied the numerosity requirement in Rule 23(a) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs argue that they had the incentive to protect the interests of other class members. While the evidence presented by Defendants suggests that TrimBoard is used in approximately 300 homes in Charleston County, they exclude 171 homes that have warranty claims. Therefore, the court finds that the number of homes, in this case, meets the numerosity requirement.
The Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to recover under the warranty as a class, which predominates over claims made against the Defendants. As such, they argue, the claims that were filed against TrimBoard fall under the broader category of defective products. Further, the class-wide relief sought by the Plaintiffs would help improve the product’s performance. However, the plaintiffs note that there are still numerous claims filed against the company.
Date of filing
When the Class Action was filed, the plaintiffs alleged that LP failed to provide adequate warnings of the dangers of TrimBoard and that the company failed to provide an express warranty. They filed a complaint, and the court granted class certification. As of today, all structures in Charleston County, South Carolina, that use the TrimBoard are covered by the Settlement. However, the court also noted that some structures are exempt from the Settlement, including those owned by the government or Defendants.
Begley has alleged that Windsor’s defective trim board causes premature rot. Count four of his amended complaint asserts that Windsor breached its express warranty and breached its duty of care to consumers. Windsor allegedly did not warn consumers about the risks of using the defective trim board, which causes it to rot prematurely. In addition to failing to provide a warranty, Begley claims that the trim board fails to look like traditional lumber for several years without repainting and that it does not withstand the ravages of time and weather.
Class size
This month’s federal court decision will determine the class size in the TrimBoard lawsuit. If the Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the decision could delay thousands of children’s education. In the past, courts have stepped in to save students’ educational futures by requiring districts to reduce class size. But the commissioner’s decision could delay the case even further and result in irreparable harm to thousands of children.
Previously, the New York State Education Commissioner had approved a district’s plan to reduce class size over five years. But the district has not followed the plan. Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the state’s education commissioner. However, in December 2017, the commissioner denied their petition because it stated that the district’s obligation to reduce class size had expired. Nevertheless, advocates filed suit in federal court to enforce the C4E law.
