J T Real Estate Investments v. Cardiomems Inc et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B Propst on 2/27/2013. (AVC)
2013 Feb-27 AM 09:13
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
J T REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS
PMI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
VOYAGER FINANCIAL GROUP LLC
This cause comes on to be heard on Defendant Cardiomems, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss
Complaint filed December 18, 2012 and Defendant Cardiomems, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint filed January 22, 2013.
CardioMEMS contends that the purchase order required delivery of the equipment before
any right to payment became due, and that, because there was no delivery, there is no right of
payment for PMI to assign to JT. CardioMEMS argues that an account receivable is
uncollectible unless and until the goods ordered were delivered to the buyer. It cites Plymel v.
B.W. Projects, Inc., 632 So. 2d 453, 454 (Ala. 1993). CardioMEMS admits that it terminated the
purchase order short of the February 10, 2012 delivery deadline, but it argues that this does not
have bearing on JT’s attempt to collect the alleged account receivable.
See recorded hearing of January 30, 2013 with regard to narrowing of issues.
JT cites the definitions of a buyer, seller, and an assignment under the Alabama Code and
case law. A buyer is a person who buys or contracts to buy goods, and a seller is a person who
sells or contracts to sell goods. See Ala. Code § 7-2-103(1)(a)-(b). Unless otherwise agreed,
either buyers or sellers have the ability to assign any or all of their rights under contracts of sale,
unless it would materially change the duty of the other party, increase the burden or risk imposed
upon the other party, or impair the other party in obtaining return performance. Ala. Code § 7-2210(2). JT cites Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Kirkland, 69 So. 3d 98, 102 (Ala.
JT also argues that its assigned right gives it the right to make a claim for breach of
contract for anticipatory repudiation. CardioMEMS has admitted to terminating the contract
before the final deadline. JT claims that the buyer’s obligation is to pay according to the contract,
therefore requiring CardioMEMS to pay JT according to the contract and assignment.
Conclusion of Court
Contract law and assignment rights dictate that JT has the right to seek payment under the
purchase order. Plymel is clearly distinguishable because it was decided after a trial based upon
affirmative defense(s). The case was not decided on any pretrial motion. There was no
allegation of anticipatory repudiation. JT has at least stated a viable claim. JT is entitled to
whatever damages, if any, PMI would receive if PMI were to bring a breach of contract suit
against CardioMEMS. The obligation of Cardiomems will be restricted to the amount, if any,
which Cardiomems owed PMI as a result of any breach of contract. The Motions to Dismiss will
This the 27th day of February, 2013.
ROBERT B. PROPST
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The court has not attempted to discuss all the manners in which various cases discussed by the parties are
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?