Roth v. Trex Company, Inc.

Background

In a prior nationwide class-action settlement involving alleged surface flaking in Trex decking, the court approved a settlement and entered judgment. The judgment included a permanent injunction barring settlement-class members from filing lawsuits based on released claims. The settlement class included people who owned or previously owned qualifying decks or other structures containing Trex decking purchased or acquired between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2007. The settlement excluded people who properly and timely opted out. The court had also retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and injunction.

Gary Roth stated that his predecessor in interest purchased Trex decking material in 2006 and that Roth purchased property with the decking in July 2020. In October 2022, Roth submitted a claim under the settlement. Trex offered him $6,739 for the affected decking material and an additional $687.60 under the settlement order. Roth refused the payment. In August 2023, he filed a state-court action against Trex for product liability, negligence, and breach of warranty based on allegedly defective decking that caused property damage. Trex removed that action to federal court and filed the motion addressed in this order.

Arguments

Trex asked the court to dismiss Roth’s action as asserting a released claim, enforce the existing injunction, and find Roth in contempt of the settlement order. Roth argued that the settlement should not bind him because he did not receive notice of the earlier class action or an opportunity to opt out. He also argued that Trex had not honored the settlement because Trex offered only part of the replacement cost he sought. Roth requested discovery concerning the relationship between him and his predecessor and the adequacy of notice.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Roth’s claim concerned the same alleged decking defect covered by the settlement. It rejected Roth’s notice argument because the relevant questions concerned his predecessor in interest, who purchased the decking in 2006. Roth had not alleged that his predecessor failed to receive notice or opted out. The court also relied on the earlier court’s determination that the settlement notice was adequate and satisfied due-process requirements. It therefore found no basis to conclude that Roth was owed separate notice or that the settlement did not bind his claim.

The court also rejected Roth’s argument that Trex’s alleged failure to honor the settlement allowed him to sue. The settlement provided a procedure for appealing Trex’s claim determination to a claims administrator within 35 days. Roth did not use that procedure or appeal the initial determination. The court concluded that he could not bring suit on the ground that Trex failed to comply with the settlement.

The court denied Roth’s request for discovery because the adequacy of the settlement notice had already been decided in the binding settlement. The court stated that Roth could not relitigate that issue.

Trex also requested a contempt finding, sanctions, and reimbursement of its costs and fees. The court did not grant those requests. Instead, it stated that Trex could pursue them through additional filings and required any such motion to be filed within 14 days.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Trex’s motion to enforce judgment and ENJOINED Roth’s state-court action. It DENIED AS MOOT the motion for relief from the case-management schedule and VACATED the November 30, 2023 hearing. The order does not state that the state-court action was dismissed.