GIBSON, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on a "Motion to Dismiss" (Doc. No. 45), filed by the Defendants, InfoPrint Solutions Company, LLC, ("InfoPrint"), International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM Corporation") and IBM Credit LLC ("IBM Credit") (collectively, "IBM"), (the "Motion to Dismiss"). The Plaintiff, North American Communications, Inc., opposes the Motion to Dismiss. Doc. Nos. 47 & 48. For the reasons that follow, the Motion to Dismiss is
This case arises out of Plaintiffs lease of two (2) high speed copier machines/printers (the "Machines" or the "Printers") manufactured by Defendant IBM and rented/leased by Plaintiff, and with the related finance and maintenance contracts entered into by Plaintiff and Defendant IBM Credit and Defendant InfoPrint, respectively. Doc. 31-2 at 3. There are 3 written contracts which are at the heart of this dispute:
Plaintiff claims that the machines failed to function properly at any point after their delivery and installation. Doc. 31-1 at 5. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants knew the usage intended by Plaintiff, specifically the need to be able to run Magnetic Ink Character Recognition ("MICR") software (Doc. 31-1 at 5), and that the Machines never met their intended usage. Doc. 31-1 at 4. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendants' "material breach" of contract, it has been deprived of the usage and value of the machines. Doc. 31-1 at 4-6. Plaintiff alleges breach of contract against Defendant IBM and Defendant InfoPrint, and breach of warranty against Defendant IBM. Doc. 31-1 at 4-6. Plaintiff requests that this Court enter a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et. seq. Doc. 31-1 at 11. Lastly, Plaintiff seeks rescission of contract and a resulting entitlement to recovery of lease payments to date, consequential and incidental damages, and reasonable attorney's fees. Doc. 31-1 at 12.
The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Venue is proper because the Plaintiff has its principal place of business in Duncansville, Blair County, Pennsylvania.
Defendant brought this motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Doc. 45. Rule 8, which governs general pleading matters, provides that "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain. . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. For purposes of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the Court looks at whether Plaintiffs "ha[ve] made factual allegations that state a plausible ground for relief and assumes those allegations to be true. Fowler v. UPMC Shady side, 578 F.3d 203, 211-12 (3d Cir. 2009).
The Third Circuit in Fowler instructed district courts to conduct a two-part analysis:
578 F.3d at 210-11 (citations omitted).
As noted in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, "the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require `detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an un-adorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation, [internal citations omitted]. A pleading that offers `labels and conclusions' or `a formulaic recitation of the elements of
As elucidated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 883 (2009); citing Twombly, at 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955; also citing Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2); also citing 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir.2007).
In federal diversity cases, a federal court must apply the conflict of law rules of the forum state in which it sits, in this case, Pennsylvania.
As the Third Circuit has noted, Pennsylvania courts generally honor the intent of the contracting parties and enforce choice of law provisions in contracts executed by them if that state bears a reasonable relationship to the contract. Kruzits v. Okuma Machine Tool, Inc., et al, 40 F.3d 52, 55 (3d Cir.1994); see also Heunisch v. Exidyne, Inc., et al, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14960, *4 (W.D.Pa.1985); see
Further, Pennsylvania courts have adopted section 187 of the Restatement, Second, Conflict of Laws, which provides as follows:
Restatement 2d of Conflict of Laws, § 187; cited by Kruzits at 55.
Thus, this Court has held that in accordance with Pennsylvania's adoption of the Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws, § 187, contract provisions should be upheld as long as the transaction bears a "`reasonable relationship to the state whose law is governing.'" GNC Franchising, Inc. v. Tim O'Brien, et al. at 743; quoting Churchill Corp. v. Third Century, Inc., 396 Pa.Super. 314, 578 A.2d 532, 537 (Pa.Super.1990); see also Hopkins v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 2006 WL 2266253, *3-4, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59438, *10 (W.D.Pa.2006).
Where two states have an interest generally in the protection of their citizens from illegal activities, for example, fraud, this is generally an insufficient basis to justify non-application of a contract's choice of law provision where there is some reasonable relationship between the choice of law clause and the contractually chosen state. See, e.g., Alnoor Rahemtulla et al. v. Nazim Hassam et al, 539 F.Supp.2d 755, 763-64 (M.D.Pa.2008); see also Hopkins v. GNC Franchising, 2006 WL 2266253, *3-4, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59438, *10 (W.D.Pa.2006).
Defendants argue for dismissal on several grounds: 1) that Plaintiffs claim is time-barred under the Statute of Limitations; 2) that Plaintiff has not stated a claim as to Defendant InfoPrint upon
Defendants argue that this Court should apply the choice of law provisions in the contracts which is New York law. Doc. 46 p. 23. In contrast. Plaintiff argues that that Pennsylvania law should apply. Plaintiff argues that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a stronger interest in this dispute, the "transaction does not bear a `reasonable relationship'" to New York, and New York has no substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction,
Defendants argue that Defendant IBM is headquartered in New York and does business in New York, and either of these facts alone would be sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable relationship with the State of New York and thus require that the Court honor the parties' contractual choice of law clause and apply New York substantive law,
The Customer Agreement between the parties specifies the laws of the State of New York as governing the contract and all disputes arising thereunder:
As stated above, Pennsylvania courts will only ignore a contractual choice of law provision if that provision conflicts with strong public policy interests. The Third Circuit's decision in Kruzits v. Okuma Machine Tool, Inc. is directly on point:
Kruzits at 56. The Kruzits court rejected an argument that the choice of law provision impacted Pennsylvania's public policy as codified in the Pennsylvania Worker's Compensation Act ("PWCA"), finding that any tangential relationship to this Act did not infringe upon the PWCA or any Pennsylvania public policy interest. Id. Similarly, we find that there is no impact in this case to a strong public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Further, the general interest of Pennsylvania in discouraging breaches of contracts or breaches of warranties which might impact its citizens is too general an interest to justify non-application of the parties' agreed-upon choice of law.
As we previously held in Hopkins v. GNC Franchising, Inc., Plaintiff in this case has not argued that application of New York law would be contrary to some fundamental policy of Pennsylvania. 2006 WL 2266253, *, 2006 U.S. Dist. 59438, *10 (W.D.Pa.2006). Rather, it is reasonable for a company (Defendant IBM) based in New York, that does business on a nation-wide basis, to want uniformity of interpretation of its contracts, and therefore to stipulate New York law as governing its contracts. See Id.
Thus, we hold that the parties' choice of law, as expressed in their contractual agreements, is not superseded. Defendants are correct that the fact that Defendant IBM is headquartered in New York and does business in the State of New York establishes a reasonable relationship to the contract such that the choice of New York law specified in the contract will be upheld. Accordingly, we apply New York State law in this analysis.
Defendant argues that the statute of limitations had already run at the time Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 17, 2008. Doc. 46 at 8-9. Plaintiff responds that the statute of limitations did not begin running at the time of installation in July or August 2006, because the statute of limitations was tolled by the fact that Defendant InfoPrint continued to advise Plaintiff, from the time of installation until January or February 2007, that the printers were functional and would perform according to Plaintiffs needs and specifications, but simply had temporary and fixable glitches related to installation. Doc. 48 at 6-7. Plaintiff claims that it was not until some point in January or February 2007 that Defendant InfoPrint first advised Plaintiff that "the Printers themselves were defective and were incapable of properly running MICR technology, at the appropriate levels to achieve the yield
Plaintiff acknowledges that the Customer Agreement limits the statute of limitations to two years, rather than the four years stipulated in New York's Uniform Commercial Code, discussed supra. However, Plaintiff argues that the agreement as a whole included monthly service payments (under the Service Agreement) and monthly finance payments (under the Credit Contract), therefore the warranty by Defendants extended to future performance; thus, the cause of action accrued when the breach was or should have been discovered, see supra, which was sometime in January or February of 2007. Doc. 48 at 9-10. Further, Plaintiff argues that the seven (7) year term of the Service Agreement warranty extends the warranty on the Machines themselves, making this action timely. Doc. 48 at 10, 12.
Defendants argue that the warranty provision in the Customer Agreement extends to the condition of each machine at the time of delivery and for repair or replacement up to two years from the time of delivery, but does not provide a warranty for future performance, as claimed by Plaintiff, that might toll the statute of limitations. Doc. 46 at 25.
Defendants also argue that when interpreted under New York law (see discussion, supra), the warranty provided in the Customer Agreement is a "repair or replace warranty", rather than a warranty for future performance. Doc. 46 at 25. Defendants argue that this means that the only option available to Plaintiff under the contract was to have the Machines either repaired or replaced within the time allotted under the contractually-specified two year statute of limitations. Id.
Under New York law, "[t]he applicable statute of limitations for a breach of warranty, express or implied, on a contract of sale for a good is four years, [internal citations omitted]. Under New York law, a cause of action for breach of warranty begins to accrue upon the date of delivery." Gary Woods et al. v. Maytag Co. et al., 2010 WL 4314313, *2, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116595, *6 (E.D.N.Y.2010); citing N.Y. U.C.C. 2-725; also citing Fernandez v. Cent-Mine Equip. Co., 670 F.Supp.2d 178, 189 (E.D.N.Y.2009); see also Momentive Performance Materials USA, Inc., 659 F.Supp.2d 332, 338 (N.D.N.Y.2009). However, parties may expressly specify a shorter warranty in the terms of the contract. See H. Sand & Co., Inc. v. Airtempt Corporation, 934 F.2d 450, 453 (2nd Cir.1991).
There are two exceptions to the four year statute of limitations outlined above: the first exception is where a warranty explicitly guarantees future performance; second, in cases of fraudulent concealment courts have applied equitable estoppel to toll the statute of limitations if the fraud prevented the plaintiff from filing a timely action. Gary Woods et al. v. Maytag Co. et al., 2010 WL 4314313, *2-3, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116595, *6 (E.D.N.Y.2010).
The future performance exception to the statute of limitations on the sale of goods applies only to express warranties, not implied warranties, and the express warranty must explicitly extend to future performance. Gary Woods et al. v. Maytag
The future performance exception is a narrow exception and must be clearly stated in the language of the contract:
Gary Woods et al. v. Maytag Co. et al, 2010 WL 4314313, *3, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116595, *8 (E.D.N.Y.2010); citing and quoting Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v. Allied Corp., 914 F.Supp. 960, 962 (S.D.N.Y.1995); also citing and quoting Rochester-Genesee Reg'l Trans. Auth. v. Cummins Inc., No. 09-CV-6370, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75805, 2010 WL 2998768, at *3-4 (W.D.N.Y.2010); see also Momentive Performance Materials USA, Inc. v. AstroCosmos Metallurgical Inc., 659 F.Supp.2d 332, 347 (N.D.N.Y.2009); see also Brainard v. Freightliner Corporation, 2002 WL 31207467, *3, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18617, *12-13 (W.D.N.Y.2002). Thus, warranties to repair or replace a good are distinct from warranties for future performance, and do not extend the statute of limitations.
When a warranty explicitly guarantees future performance the cause of action accrues when the breach is or ought to have been discovered. Gary Woods et al. v. Maytag Co. et al, 2010 WL 4314313, *3, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116595, *7 (E.D.N.Y.2010); citing N.Y. U.C.C. 2-725(2). In contrast, an implied warranty cause of action accrues at the time of delivery, see supra; see also Gary Woods et al. v. Maytag Co. et al., 2010 WL 4314313, *3, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116595, *7 (E.D.N.Y.2010); citing Orlando v. Novurania of America, Inc., 162 F.Supp.2d 220, 224 (S.D.N.Y.2001); see also Momentive Performance Materials USA, Inc. v. AstroCosmos Metallurgical, Inc., 659 F.Supp.2d 332, 347-48 (N.D.N.Y. 2009); see also U.C.C. § 2-725.
Even when a warranty explicitly extends to future performance, an immediate failure of the goods takes the case out of that exception. See, e.g., Momentive Performance Materials v. Astro-Cosmos Metallurgical, Inc., et al., 659 F.Supp.2d 332, 348 (N.D.N.Y.2009).
In order for the fraudulent concealment exception to the statute of limitations to apply, there must be; 1) a duty on the part of the defendant to disclose material information; 2) a material false representation by the defendant; 3) an intent on the part of the defendant to defraud the plaintiff thereby; 4) a reasonable reliance by the plaintiff on the materially false representation; and 5) damage to the plaintiff as a result of this reliance, Gary Woods et al. v. Maytag Co. et al., 2010 WL 4314313, *5, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116595, *13 (E.D.N.Y.2010); citing Wall v. CSX Transp., Inc., 471 F.3d 410, 415-16 (2d Cir.2006); also citing Manhattan Motorcars,
Plaintiff has not claimed fraudulent concealment.
It is important to note that under New York law, a plaintiffs reliance upon promises to repair a product does not toll the statute of limitations. Momentive Performance Materials USA, Inc. v. Astro-Cosmos Metallurgical, Inc., 659 F.Supp.2d 332, 338-39, 348 (N.D.N.Y.2009); citing Triangle Underwriters, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 604 F.2d 737 (2d Cir.1979); in turn citing Thalrose v. General Motors, 8 U.C.C. Rep.Serv. 1257, Aff'd, without opinion, 41 A.D.2d 906, 343 N.Y.S.2d 303 (1st Dept.1973); see also H. Sand & Co., Inc. v. Airtemp Corporation, 934 F.2d 450, 455 (2nd Cir.1991) (the tender of delivery of a defective machine is deemed to have occurred when the machine was first delivered, not when the repair attempts were finally abandoned). The "repair doctrine" is a common-law equitable estoppel of the statute of limitations for breach of warranty where the seller attempts to make repairs and represents that such repairs will cure the defect. Momentive Performance Materials, 659 F.Supp.2d 332, 348. The majority of jurisdictions, including New York, have declined to apply this doctrine/exception. Id. at 348-349; citing Zielinski v. Alfa-Laval, Inc., No. CIV-86-296E, 1989 WL 29482, *2 (W.D.N.Y.1989); see also Triangle Underwriters, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 604 F.2d 737, 743 (2d Cir.1979) ("New York law provides generally that a manufacturer's efforts at repair subsequent to delivery do not extend the contract statute of limitations."); see also Koenig Iron Works, Inc. v. Sterling Factories, Inc., 1999 WL 178785, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3973 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 1999).
As neatly stated in Momentive Performance Materials, "[s]ince this claim arises under New York's Uniform Commercial Code, a four-year statute of limitations applies. Unless the warranty explicitly extends to future performance, a breach of warranty claim accrues at the time of delivery." 659 F.Supp.2d 332, 348 (N.D.N.Y. 2009).
In the instant case, the warranty in the Customer Agreement does not extend to future performance. The Customer Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant IBM Corporation has a warranty clause which provides, in relevant part:
The above-quoted clauses of the Customer Agreement are very clearly and thoroughly limited in their scope. The warranty as to the Machines is a two year warranty to repair or replace. The Machines were delivered "on or about July or August 2006." Doc. No. 31-2 at 8. This suit was filed on December 17, 2008. Thus, the statute of limitations had run.
Further, in the instant case, the plaintiff claims that the Machines never functioned properly from the first date of installation. Therefore, even if the warranty did explicitly apply to future performance, which it does not, the exception to the four-year statute of limitations (as further limited by the contract to two years) under New York's Uniform Commercial Code does not apply because there was immediate failure of the goods, see supra.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs complaint is insufficient as to InfoPrint because Plaintiff does not point to a specific term within the services agreement that Defendant InfoPrint is alleged to have breached, and that Plaintiff has also failed to allege "any actions by InfoPrint that would constitute a breach" of the Services Agreement. Doc. 46 at 9, 26-27. Defendants argue that the complaint is therefore insufficient under Fed.R.Civ.P.R. 8(a).
Defendants argue that Defendant Info-Print was responsible only for providing maintenance and servicing of the Machines under the contract, and that Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant InfoPrint failed to perform this duty, therefore there was no breach of contract on the part of Defendant InfoPrint. Doc. 46 at 27. Further, Defendants argue that Defendant Info-Print is not liable if the Machines failed to perform their specified function because Defendant InfoPrint did not provide a warranty of the Machines, Doc. 46 at 28. Lastly, Defendants argue that if any warranty on the part of Defendant InfoPrint were found to exist, it would be barred under the Statute of Limitations, as discussed above. Doc. 46 at 28.
Plaintiff responds that its complaint satisfies the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a) in that it alleges that Defendant InfoPrint had signed a contract to provide maintenance, supplies, and repair services for the Printers to Plaintiff, that Defendant InfoPrint had a duty to Plaintiff "to `keep machines in, or restore them to, conformance with their Specifications'", that Defendant Info-Print did not perform this obligation, and that as a result Plaintiff suffered harm. Doc. 48 at 18.
While the contractual term for the Service Agreement is seven years, the text of
Thus, the Plaintiff has pled no basis for relief as to Defendant InfoPrint.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff "alleges no misdeed or omission by [Defendant] IBM Credit", that Defendant IBM Credit is not responsible for any alleged breach under the lease, and that Defendant IBM Credit owed no duty to Plaintiff in terms of the functioning of the Machines. Doc. 46 at 28-29.
Defendants rely heavily on the "hell or high water" doctrine, which they argue is applicable under New York law. Under this doctrine, any claims against IBM Credit are barred by a clause in the Finance Agreement, which provides that Plaintiffs
Doc. No. 31-2 at 26; Doc. No. 46 at 9. Defendants argue that "[t]he governing law is crystal clear that such provisions are to be upheld and enforced"—thus, Plaintiffs obligation to make financing payments to IBM Credit is unaffected by the failure of the printers. Id. At 9, 29. Defendants state that this "hell or high water" clause, valid under New York law, requires the lessee (Plaintiff) to make all payments due under the lease regardless of the functioning of the equipment that is the subject of the lease. Doc. 46 at 30.
Plaintiffs response to this argument is that the complaint has set forth two valid claims against IBM Credit: firstly, that the lease agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant IBM Credit should be terminated by virtue of the entry of declaratory judgment and subsequent return of the Printers to Defendant IBM, which would also release Plaintiff from making further monthly payments under the lease agreement; and secondly, that this Court should grant the equitable remedy of rescission of the Lease Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant IBM Credit, due to breaches and misrepresentations by Defendants InfoPrint and IBM, the latter being the parent company of wholly-owned subsidiary IBM Credit. Doc. 48 at 5, 19-20. We
Federal district courts in New York have honored "hell or high water" clauses in equipment finance leases:
Citicorp Leasing, Inc. v. Kusher Family Limited Partnership, et al., 2006 WL 1982757, *4, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50682, *11 (S.D.N.Y.2006); see also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. BrooksAmerica Mortgage Corporation and Michael Wayne Brooks, 419 F.3d 107, 110 (2005) ("In the context of a finance lease containing a hell or high water clause, the lessee must make payments regardless of defective performance on the part of the lessor, that is, `come hell or high water.' . ., Non-performance by the lessor is irrelevant, at least when the lessee was a sophisticated party.").
The contract between Plaintiff and Defendant IBM Credit qualifies as a finance lease.
In addition, federal district and state courts in New York have held that corporate veils will not be pierced to justify invalidating a "hell or high water" clause. See e.g., Canon Financial Services, Inc. v. Medico Stationery Service, Inc., et al., 300 A.D.2d 66, 751 N.Y.S.2d 194 (1st Dept. 2002) (even where a joint venture exists between the party providing financing and the party providing equipment under an equipment lease transaction, or where they are subsidiaries of the same parent company, this does not invalidate a "hell or high water" clause in a finance contract, and the lessee is still required to make payments under such a scenario); see also Citicorp Leasing, Inc., supra, 2006 WL 1982757 at *6, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50682 at *17.
Thus, even if IBM Credit is related to or a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant IBM Corporation, this is of no import: the "hell or high water" clause is not invalidated by this corporate relationship, and Plaintiff must continue to honor the terms of its contract with Defendant IBM Credit: The explicit "hell or high water" clause agreed to by the Plaintiff and Defendant IBM Credit must be honored under New York law. Therefore, Plaintiffs instant claims against Defendant IBM Credit for breach of contract and warranty must be dismissed with prejudice.
Defendants argue that complaint fails to adequately state a claim because the Printers which are allegedly defective a non-party to the case, were supplied to the Plaintiff by Sirius Enterprise Systems Group, LLC ("Sirius"), which is not named in the complaint. Doc. 46 at 9-10. We will not address this issue, as the Complaint fails for other reasons, discussed supra.
For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 45) is
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (the "Motion for Reconsideration") (Doc. No. 60) of this Court's dismissal, with prejudice, of the claims against Defendant InfoPrint Solutions Company, LLC ("InfoPrint") (See Doc. No. 58). Former Defendant InfoPrint opposes the Motion for Reconsideration (the "Motion for Reconsideration"). Doc. No. 69. For the reasons that follow, the Motion for Reconsideration is
This case arises out of Plaintiffs lease of two (2) high speed copier machines/printers (the "Machines" or the "Printers"), manufactured by Defendant IBM and rented/leased by Plaintiff, and with the related finance and maintenance contracts entered into by Plaintiff and former Defendants IBM Credit and InfoPrint, respectively. Doc. 31-2 at 3. There are 3 written contracts which are at the heart of this dispute:
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") alleged that the Machines failed to function properly at any point after their delivery and installation. Doc. 31-1 at 5. Plaintiff further alleged in the SAC that Defendants knew the usage intended by Plaintiff, specifically the need to be able to run Magnetic Ink Character Recognition ("MICR") software (Doc. 31-1 at 5), and that the Machines never met their intended usage. Doc. 31-1 at 4. In the SAC, Plaintiff alleged breach of contract by Defendants IBM and InfoPrint, and breach of warranty by Defendant IBM. Doc. 31-1 at 4-6. Plaintiff also requested that this Court enter a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et. seq. Doc. 31-1 at 11. Lastly, Plaintiff sought rescission of contract and a resulting entitlement to recovery of lease payments to date, consequential and incidental damages, and reasonable attorney's fees. Doc. 31-1 at 12.
On January 13, 2011, this Court entered a "Memorandum and Order of Court" (Doc. No. 58) which granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss: the Defendants' Motion was granted with prejudice as to Defendants IBM Credit and InfoPrint, and granted without prejudice as to Defendant IBM Corporation, with leave for Plaintiff to re-file against the latter within ten (10) days if Plaintiff believed in good faith that there was a valid basis for a claim of fraudulent concealment.
In addition, Plaintiff has reiterated in the TAC its complaints against Defendant IBM Credit, LLC ("IBM Credit"): Plaintiff has clarified that its purpose in so doing, despite this Court's dismissal of those claims with prejudice, is to preserve these claims for appeal; however, Plaintiff has not asked this Court for reconsideration of its dismissal with prejudice as to Defendant IBM Credit.
This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332. Venue is proper because the Plaintiff has its principal place of business in Duncansville, Blair County, Pennsylvania.
As summarized by the Third Circuit, "The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is `to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.' [internal citations omitted]. A proper Rule 59(e) motion therefore must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir.Del. 2010); citing Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.1999); also citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.1995); see also Toy v. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 74 Pension Plan, 317 Fed.Appx. 169 (3d Cir.2009); citing Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985); also citing Max's Seafood Cafe by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.1999); see also Piscitelli v. Mirow (In re Nicola), 65 Fed.Appx. 759, 764 (3d Cir.2003) (`"The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is
Further, "[a] court may not grant a Motion for Reconsideration when the motion simply restyles or rehashes issues previously presented, [internal citations omitted]. A motion for reconsideration `addresses only factual and legal matters that the Court may have overlooked. . . . It is improper on a motion for reconsideration to ask the Court to rethink what [it] had already thought through rightly or wrongly.' [internal citations omitted]. Because federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly." Karn v. Ben Avon Borough, 2011 WL 2600671, *1, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70832, *2-3 (W.D.Pa.2011). citing Pahler v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 207 F.Supp.2d 341, 355 (M.D.Pa.2001); also citing Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D.Pa. 1993).
As noted above, Plaintiff argues that its claims against Defendant InfoPrint should be reinstated, as new evidence has come to light that Defendant InfoPrint knew that the printers could not be "fixed" or corrected so that they would perform to specifications, yet kept asserting to Plaintiff that the issues could and would be fixed. Doc. Nos. 60 and 61. In addition, Plaintiff further asserts that Defendant InfoPrint attempted to convince Plaintiff to purchase more of the same type of printers and sign up for additional maintenance contracts with InfoPrint, despite the fact that Defendant InfoPrint knew that these additional machines would also be unable to function in the manner that Plaintiff required, and knew that it (Defendant InfoPrint) would be unable to "fix" them. Doc. Nos. 60, 61.
Plaintiff argues that it "promptly filed suit on December 17, 2008. This is nearly a year before the date that the statute of limitations would have expired when measured from the date [that] . . . Defendants admitted to North American . . . that the Printers were defective." Doc. 68 at 13. (Plaintiff asserts that this date is August 29, 2007, see supra).
Plaintiff argues that a newly-produced internal email communications between Defendants IBM and InfoPrint's executives, the contents of which seem to indicate that IBM and/or InfoPrint knew at the time of the email communications, in early October, 2007, that the printers might not be fixable, qualifies as "new facts" which support Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration. Doc. 68 at 14. However, this argument does not justify reconsideration of the claims against Defendant InfoPrint—the emails are dated October 2 through October 10, 2007; there is no indication on the record that Defendant InfoPrint knew the printers were unfixable, but fraudulently hid this fact, at an earlier point in time. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant InfoPrint informed Plaintiff that it believed the printers could not be fixed on August 29, 2007. Doc. No. 68 at 12. Therefore, this "new evidence" indicating that Defendant InfoPrint may have known of the printers' defects and may have been fraudulently concealing these defects as early as October 10, 2007, does not change the case against Defendant InfoPrint. We
Further, Plaintiffs vague contentions that Defendant InfoPrint tried to persuade Plaintiff to purchase more printers so that Defendant InfoPrint could provide service under additional contracts for those additional printers are immaterial: Plaintiff has stated that it did not purchase additional printers, therefore even if Defendant InfoPrint did encourage this, there was no damage as a result of this encouragement,
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 60) is
U.C.C. § 2A-103.
