Omega Flex, Inc. v. George, No. 17-8024 (8th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

The Eighth Circuit affirmed a petition for permission to appeal the district court's order denying Article III standing to Respondent Bonnie George, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. George filed a class action against petitioners, alleging loss of benefit-of-the-bargain for the diminution in the value of structures containing corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST). The court held that George's assertions of paying more than CSST was worth and the consequent loss in value of the structures were economic injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil procedure. The class-action plaintiff's allegation claiming loss of benefit-of-the-bargain for diminution of value of structures containing gas line tubing manufactured by Omega Flex and others was sufficient to create Article III standing, and the district court erred in remanding the matter to state court; the plaintiff's assertions of paying more than the tubing is worth and the consequent loss in value of the structures are economic injuries sufficient to establish Article III standing. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-8024 ___________________________ Bonnie George; Ed McKinzie; Tim Worstell; Cedar Deraps; Casey Wasser; Tammy Volkart; James Rehm; Ron Metzgar lllllllllllllllllllllRespondents v. Omega Flex, Inc.; Ward Manufacturing, LLC; Titeflex Corporation lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: August 25, 2017 Filed: November 1, 2017 [Published] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Petitioners Omega Flex, Inc., Ward Manufacturing, LLC, and Titeflex Corporation request permission to appeal the district court’s order denying Article III standing to Bonnie George, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and remanding the case to the circuit court of Pulaski County, Missouri. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1), this court grants the petition for permission to appeal, reverses, and remands. Petitioners manufacture and sell yellow-insulated corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST). CSST is used to distribute natural or propane gas within homes and other structures. George claims that CSST is susceptible to failure when exposed to electrical arcing from household appliances, and to indirect or direct lightning strikes. George filed a class action lawsuit in federal court alleging violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. Petitioners moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the claims without prejudice. George then sued in state court, again alleging MMPA violations, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment, but adding loss of benefit-of-the-bargain for the diminution in the value of the structures containing CSST. Petitioners removed the case to federal court, arguing George had Article III standing based on the benefit-ofthe-bargain claim. Petitioners also moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court ruled that the benefit-of-the-bargain claim failed to bolster the claims enough for Article III standing. The court granted George’s motion to remand. Petitioner moves for permission to appeal asserting the benefit-of-thebargain claim sufficiently establishes standing even if the claims are ultimately without merit. This court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Diversified Ingredients, Inc.v. Testa, 846 F.3d 994, 995 (8th Cir. 2017). Article III extends judicial power only to cases and controversies. George has the burden to establish that she “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016). George’s assertions of paying more than CSST is worth and the consequent loss in -2- value of the structures are economic injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. See Kuhns v. Scottrade, Inc., 868 F.3d 711, 716 (8th Cir. 2017). The petition for permission to appeal is granted. The judgment is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ______________________________ -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.