United States Eighth Circuit

In a class action involving insulated glass products, district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims is affirmed where: 1) the court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs' amended class complaint alleging defects in defendant's windows as the complaint did not meet FRCP rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement; 2) court did not err in finding that plaintiffs' UCC-based claims should be dismissed as they did not provide adequate notice of the complaint; 3) court did not err in dismissing plaintiff Drobnak's UCC-based claims as they were barred by the statute of limitations; and 4) court did not err in denying plaintiffs' requests for permission to file a second amended complaint.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/06/2009
• Published 04/06/2009

Judges

• WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge., Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Steven Alan Schwartz, argued, Haverford, PA, J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., and David M. Cialkowski, Minneapolis, MN, and Brian R. Strange and Gretchen Carpenter, on the brief, Los Angeles, CA, for appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Gary Hansen, argued, Andrew S. Hansen, Heidi A.O. Fisher and Adam C. Trampe, on the brief, Minneapolis, MN, for appellees.