081314P.pdf   04/06/2009  Alan Drobnak  v.  Andersen Corporation
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  08-1314
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED][Wollman, Author, with Beam and Benton, Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - Class Actions. The district court did not err in dismissing
   plaintiffs' amended class complaint alleging defects in defendant's
   windows, as the complaint did not meet Rule 9(b)'s particularity 
   requirements; nor did the court err in finding that plaintiffs' UCC-based
   claims should be dismissed on the ground they did not provide adequate
   notice; court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs' Drobnak's UCC-based
   claims on the ground they were barred by the statute of limitations;
   district court did not err in dismissing claim for equitable relief as
   plaintiffs would have had an adequate legal remedy had they adhered to
   the statutory notice and Rule 9(b) pleading requirements; district court
   did not err in denying plaintiffs' requests for permission to file a second
   amended complaint.