On November 8, 2016, Judge James Shadid held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration on Judge Baker’s previous ruling denying Plaintiffs’ motion to strike new testimony IKO submitted on behalf of two purported experts, Dr. Rene Dupuis and Andrew Lodge. Judge Shadid denied Plaintiffs’ motion but ordered IKO to produce documents and ordered that Plaintiffs be permitted to depose Dupuis and Lodge. The parties disagreed regarding the scope of the required production and on February 3, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel. On February 28, 2017, Judge Shadid ordered IKO to produce additional documents.
Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification and IKO’s Motion for Summary Judgment are still pending before the Court. A Status Conference is now scheduled for April 25, 2017. We will continue to keep you apprised of any developments.
IKO Status Update – August 2016
The presiding judge in this matter, Judge Harold A. Baker, recused himself from this matter on July 15, 2016. The case has been reassigned to Judge James Shadid. There are two motions currently pending before the Court. On March 4, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification and on October 22, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Since then, the Parties have routinely updated the Court with recent decisions that they believe will impact the outcome of the two pending motions. On April 4, 2016, Judge Baker asked the Parties to submit supplemental briefing incorporating the information submitted by the Parties. The Parties submitted supplemental briefs, concluding their briefing on June 6, 2016. The new schedule and reassignment likely means that the Court will not issue a decision on either motion until Fall 2016 at the earliest. We will keep you apprised of any developments.
IKO Status Update – May 7, 2015
Plaintiffs appealed Judge Baker’s January 28, 2014 decision denying class certification and were successful in obtaining a reversal of the decision. On July 2, 2014, The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that there were multiple grounds upon which the district court judge could certify the class. The Seventh Circuit court of appeals then remanded the case to Judge Baker for proceedings consistent with the order.
On March 4, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. IKO has until July 30, 2015, to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs will then submit a reply brief on August 31, 2015. A hearing on class certification will be scheduled sometime thereafter. Meanwhile, on October 22, 2014, IKO filed additional summary judgment motions which Plaintiffs have opposed. A ruling on these summary judgment motions is forthcoming.
Case Update – Canadian Litigation
Canadian Class Certified
On July 19, 2012, the Ontario Court certified a national Canadian class on behalf of all persons that own or have owned, lease or have leased, and all those who have or may pursue claims through or in the name or right of those who own or have owned, lease or have leased buildings in Canada that contain or have ever contained IKO organic shingles. The defendants have a right to seek leave to appeal certification. We have sent the contact information provided to us by Canadian consumers to Siskinds law firm. Any additional communication regarding the Canadian lawsuit should be with Siskinds.
For those consumers in Canada with IKO shingles please contact Siskinds law firm toll-free at 1-800-461-6166 ext 2446 or by email at [email protected] or visit their website at www.classaction.ca/actions/products-liability/current-actions/iko-roofin.
Case Update February 2014
On January 28, 2014, Judge Harold Baker denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification.
In his ruling, Judge Baker reasoned that the evidence provided to the Court was insufficient to support a finding that Plaintiffs have each experienced the same type of damage. In particular, Judge Baker disagreed with Plaintiff’s attorneys that the damages experienced by consumers resulted from the company’s failure to manufacture and test shingles using industry standards. He noted, “installation, weather, and other issues factor into each plaintiff’s claimed injury.”
We strongly disagree with Judge Baker’s ruling and we intend to appeal the denial of class certification. We will continue to provide updates throughout the appeal process.
Class Certification Hearing Yet to Come
The Court issued a ruling on May 10, 2013, but did not rule on class certification.
Judge Baker ruled on several of Plaintiffs’ claims, requiring substitution of class representatives and amendments to the remaining claims against IKO. Based on these rulings, the scheduling order has been amended to allow Plaintiff’s additional time to modify their claims as required by the court’s decisions.
Plaintiffs will file their amended motion for class certification on June 24, 2013, and Defendants will respond within 30 days. We anticipate that the judge will then hear arguments on the Motion and issue a ruling sometime after that.
We know that these lawsuits seem to take a long time, and often they do – even though the parties have worked hard to keep things moving forward. This is the challenging nature of litigation. We thank you for your interest in the case. Please continue to monitor the website for additional updates.
Case Update March 2013
The District Court has modified the briefing schedule regarding the hearing on the motion for class certification.
The motion for class certification will be filed after the court rules on the pending motions for summary judgment. The hearing on the motion for class certification, originally scheduled for mid-April, has been rescheduled for May 9, 2013.
We will continue to provide updates as the Judge issues his decisions.
Case Update December 20, 2012
District Court Judge has set a briefing schedule for class certification and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
On December 5, 2012, Judge Baker entered a Case Management Order that established the following dates and deadlines. The Motions for Summary Judgment remain pending. The court intends to rule on the motions no later then February 1,2013. The plaintiffs will file an Amended Motion for Class Certification no later than February 22, 2013. The Defendants must file a response to the Amended Motion for Class Certification no later than March 7, 2013, and the Plaintiffs shall reply no later than March 21,2013. Following the Court’s review of the motions, the Court will issue a ruling on class certification. We are hopeful that the Judge will issue a decision in the late spring or early summer; however the Judge may take more time. We will continue to provide updates as the Judge issues his decisions.
IKO s Warranty / Goodwill Release Offer
October 10, 2012 – Status Unchanged
District Court Judge has not ruled on class certification
‘Goodwill Release Offer’
Many individuals have contacted IKO regarding warranty claims and have received a ‘goodwill release offer’ from the company. Typically, this warranty offer will cover the cost of prorated materials and you will be given a 30 day period within which to accept or reject IKO’s offer. The decision to accept or reject IKO’s offer is a personal one and you will need to take your individual circumstances into consideration. In weighing your options you may find it useful to consider the following:
– You can accept IKO’s warranty / ‘goodwill release offer’ in which case you would sign a release of your claims against the company and most likely would not be able to participate in any potential class action settlement down the line.
Case Update May 2012
On March 27, 2012, the Court issued an order in response to Plaintiffs’ and IKO’s motions to exclude the other’s expert from testifying in this case. After hearing live testimony and reading each party’s briefings, the Court concluded that both experts were qualified to testify, but that IKO’s expert, Mr. Ricketts, was not qualified to testify about IKO’s success in the marketplace.