Salhotra v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing Company Inc. sold HD Strap-Tie Holdowns and MAS Mudsill Anchors that were inherently defective and prone to premature corrosion. The products are installed in concrete foundations and are made of steel with G90 galvanization. The plaintiffs alleged that Simpson’s marketing materials and warranties were misleading or inadequate concerning corrosion and product performance.

The plaintiffs sought certification of three proposed groups: a nationwide class, a California class, and an Arizona class. The proposed classes included current owners of residential structures containing the products and certain former owners who paid to repair or replace them. The remaining claims included claims under California’s consumer-protection and unfair-competition laws, the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud-related claims as described in the opinion. The court had previously dismissed the fraud and negligent-misrepresentation claims with prejudice, but that earlier ruling was not the ruling at issue here.

Evidentiary Rulings

The court granted Simpson’s request for judicial notice of three certified deeds of trust and a complaint filed in Solano County Superior Court. The court did not take judicial notice of the truth of disputed factual assertions within that state-court complaint.

The court denied Simpson’s objections to portions of the plaintiffs’ non-expert declarations. It held that, at the class-certification stage, inadmissibility alone was not a sufficient reason to refuse to consider those declarations. Because of that ruling, the court denied as moot the plaintiffs’ motion to strike Simpson’s objections to the declarations.

The court granted Simpson’s motion to exclude the declaration and testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert, Paul W. Brown. The court found Brown qualified to testify about structural connectors in cement based on his education and experience, but found him unqualified to opine on whether Simpson’s disclosures adequately warned purchasers about corrosion risks. The court also found his opinions about the products’ alleged inherent defect and the availability of common proof unreliable. In the court’s view, Brown did not adequately explain his methodology, how scientific standards applied to these products, or how his observations supported his conclusions. Because the expert testimony was excluded, the court denied as moot Simpson’s objections to new reply evidence and Simpson’s motion to strike that evidence.

Class Certification

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. It found that numerosity was satisfied because Simpson had sold millions of the products, but found that the plaintiffs failed to establish commonality. Commonality requires a shared question whose answer would resolve an issue central to the class members’ claims. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not provided reliable evidence showing a common inherent defect or common issues concerning Simpson’s disclosures.

The court did not address the remaining Rule 23(a) requirements—typicality and adequacy—because the lack of commonality was sufficient to deny certification. It also found that the plaintiffs failed to establish predominance because they had not shown that the existence of the alleged defect could be proved with common evidence. The court declined to impose a separate ascertainability requirement under Rule 23.

The court further found that superiority was not satisfied. It relied on the existence of other actions related to the plaintiffs’ homes and foundations, the indication that litigation concerning Simpson’s products had already begun, the plaintiffs’ failure to provide adequate justification for concentrating the litigation in that forum, and the complexities of managing the proposed class action.

Sealing Motions and Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ August 20, 2021 motion to seal as to specified material involving Simpson’s confidential business and intellectual-property information, but denied the motion as to lines 17–19 of page 3 of the class-certification motion because that information had already been disclosed in the second amended complaint. The court granted Simpson’s September 17, 2021 motion to seal. It granted the plaintiffs’ October 1, 2021 motion to seal as to specified portions concerning Simpson’s internal findings and protected exhibits. It denied the plaintiffs’ October 12, 2021 motion to seal because Simpson did not file the required supporting declaration.

In its conclusion, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification; granted Simpson’s request for judicial notice; denied Simpson’s objections to the plaintiffs’ non-expert declarations; granted Simpson’s motion to exclude the expert; denied as moot the plaintiffs’ motion to strike Simpson’s objections; denied as moot Simpson’s objections to new reply evidence; denied as moot Simpson’s motion to strike new reply evidence; and granted in part and denied in part the parties’ administrative motions to seal. The order addressed class certification and related evidence and filing issues; it did not decide whether the plaintiffs ultimately would prevail on the underlying product claims.