A putative class of homeowners whose homes contained certain Simpson Strong-Tie products embedded in their foundations sued on the theory that the products would eventually corrode and fail, though they did not allege that any of the products had already failed. The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ breach of warranty and California Unfair Competition Law claims on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The district court also awarded sanctions based on an earlier iteration of the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed and Simpson Strong-Tie retained Horvitz & Levy to defend the judgment in the Ninth Circuit.
Horvitz & Levy emphasized an argument the district court had not appreciated—that plaintiffs did not have Article III standing to pursue their claims under the Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), which bars damages claims based on a “mere risk of future harm.” The Ninth Circuit agreed, adopting the “mere risk” language from TransUnion for the first time. It additionally affirmed the district court’s sanctions award against plaintiffs’ counsel based on factually and legally baseless claims raised in an earlier complaint.
Salhotra v. Simpson Strong-Tie 
