Court Opinion

ID: 9932904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:41:21.649284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:46.522565
License: Public Domain

I concur in the result as to the recusal issue and as to the issue pertaining to disqualifying the plaintiffs' attorneys.
I would grant permission to appeal and would allow oral argument on the question of the propriety of the certification of a national class to pursue a claim against Masonite on the theory that all Masonite siding manufactured and installed since 1980 is inherently defective, where the class asserts theories of fraud, strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 105 S.Ct. 2965,86 L.Ed.2d 628 (1985); BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996); Castano v.American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996). Therefore, I dissent as to this issue.