From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Glauberzon v. Pella Corp.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Apr 7, 2011
Civil Action No.: 10-5929 (JLL) (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2011)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

finding that allegations of omissions to support NJCFA claim do not meet Rule 9(b) pleading standard because "Plaintiffs do not identify who at Pella was aware of the . . . defect, when or how they learned of such defect and/or when or how the decision was made to conceal the defect from its customers . . ."

Summary of this case from Hughes v. Panasonic Consumer Electronics Company
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

Civil Action No.: 10-5929 (JLL).

April 7, 2011

ORDER

JOSE LINARES, District Judge

This matter, having come before the Court by way of Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [Docket Entry No. 25] and, for the reasons set forth by the Court in its corresponding Opinion dated April 5, 2011,

IT IS on this 5th day of April, 2011, ORDERED that Defendants' motion [Docket Entry No. 25] is granted in part and denied in part; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint which cures the pleading deficiencies discussed in the Court's April 5, 2011 Opinion on or before June 3, 2011. Plaintiffs failure to do so will result in dismissal of the claims implicated by the Court's April 5, 2011 decision with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

Summaries of

Glauberzon v. Pella Corp.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Apr 7, 2011
Civil Action No.: 10-5929 (JLL) (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2011)

finding that allegations of omissions to support NJCFA claim do not meet Rule 9(b) pleading standard because "Plaintiffs do not identify who at Pella was aware of the . . . defect, when or how they learned of such defect and/or when or how the decision was made to conceal the defect from its customers . . ."

Summary of this case from Hughes v. Panasonic Consumer Electronics Company

denying defendant's motion to dismiss on the basis that plaintiffs are barred from bringing their claims by virtue of a settlement agreement because the complaint makes no reference to the settlement

Summary of this case from Ruffin v. Allstate Ins. Co.

explaining that a MMWA claim is "derivative of Plaintiffs' state law claim of breach of implied warranty"

Summary of this case from Neuss v. Rubi Rose, LLC

explaining that an MMWA claim is "derivative of Plaintiffs' state law claim of breach of implied warranty"

Summary of this case from Cox v. Chrysler Grp., LLC
Case details for

Glauberzon v. Pella Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ANGELA GLAUBERZON, JEFFREY S. BATOFF, SUSAN M. BATOFF, JANET BLASKO…

Court:United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: Apr 7, 2011

Citations

Civil Action No.: 10-5929 (JLL) (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2011)

Citing Cases

Defrank v. Samsung Elecs. Am.

As for the first argument, it is generally true that the existence of a valid written agreement governing the…

Szymczak v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.

Although the Perkins statement was made in dicta, it has been relied upon by numerous courts. See, e.g.,…

16 Citing Cases