1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. ROMIG v. PELLA CORPORATION
 

ROMIG v. PELLA CORPORATION

Nos. 2:14-mn-00001-DCN, 2:14-cv-00433-DCN

JOHN ROMIG, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PELLA CORPORATION and PELLA OF CENTRAL NEW YORK, INC., Defendants.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division.

December 18, 2014.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

John Romig, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher A. Seeger , Seeger, Weiss Law Firm, Daniel K Bryson , Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Jonathan Shub , Seeger, Weiss Law Firm, Scott A George , Seeger Weiss & Scott C Harris , Whitfield Bryson and Mason.

Pella Corporation, an Iowa Corporation, Defendant, represented by Clifford G. Tsan , Bond, Schoeneck Law Firm, G Mark Phillips , Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, James A O'Neal , Faegre & Benson LLP, John P. Mandler , Faegre, Baker Law Firm, Michael Tucker Cole , Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, Shane A Anderson , Faegre Baker Daniels, Suzanne O. Galbato , Bond, Schoeneck Law Firm, Thomas Keleher , Bond, Schoeneck Law Firm, Kevin L Morrow , Faegre Baker Daniels & Mark J Winebrenner , Faegre Baker Daniels.

Pella of Central New York, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth A. Genung , Melvin, Melvin Law Firm.

Pella of Central New York, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Elizabeth A. Genung , Melvin, Melvin Law Firm.

Pella Corporation, an Iowa Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Clifford G. Tsan , Bond, Schoeneck Law Firm, G Mark Phillips , Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, James A O'Neal , Faegre & Benson LLP, John P. Mandler , Faegre, Baker Law Firm, Michael Tucker Cole , Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, Shane A Anderson , Faegre Baker Daniels, Suzanne O. Galbato , Bond, Schoeneck Law Firm, Thomas Keleher , Bond, Schoeneck Law Firm & Kevin L Morrow , Faegre Baker Daniels.

ORDER

DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss brought by defendant Pella Corporation ("Pella Corp."). For the reasons set forth below, the court grants in part Pella's motion and dismisses all of plaintiff's causes of action except for his breach of express warranty claim to the extent he relies on Pella's failure to repair or replace windows under the limited warranty.

I. BACKGROUND

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases