United States Welding Inc v. Tecsys Inc

Filing 159

ORDER The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 47 is approved and adopted as an order of this court. Overruling 54 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. Granting in part and denying in part 32 Defendant Tecsys, Inc.'s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Renewed Motion to Strike. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 9/3/2015.(mlace, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00778-REB-MEH
UNITED STATES WELDING, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TECSYS, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are (1) Defendant Tecsys, Inc.’s Renewed Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and Renewed Motion to Strike [#32]1 filed September
5, 2014; and (2) the corresponding Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge [#47] filed December 1, 2014. The plaintiff filed objections [#54] to the
recommendation, and the defendant filed a response [#60] to the objections. I overrule
the objections and approve and adopt the recommendation.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which objections have been filed. I have considered carefully the
recommendation, objections, and applicable case law. The recommendation is detailed
1

“[#32]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

and well reasoned. The objections of the plaintiff do not present a valid challenge to the
reasoning and conclusions of the magistrate judge. I thus find and conclude that the
arguments advanced, authorities cited, conclusions of law, and recommendation
proposed by the magistrate judge should be approved and adopted.
The plaintiff, United States Welding, Inc. (USW), purchased software from the
defendant, Tecsys, Inc. The software was intended to serve many purposes in the
operation of the business of USW. In the end, USW alleges, the Tecsys software did
not function as promised by Tecsys and, in some ways, caused more problems than it
solved. USW alleges eight claims against Tecsys: (1) fraudulent inducement; (2)
negligent misrepresentation; (3) gross negligence; (4) willful misconduct; (5) breach of
contract; (6) breach of express and implied warranty; (7) breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing; and (8) breach of fiduciary duty. In its motion to dismiss, Tecsys
challenges these claims on a variety of bases, as detailed in the recommendation. On
certain claims, Tecsys has shown that the allegations in the complaint [#2] are not
sufficient to state a claim against Tecsys. On all other issues raised by Tecsys in its
motion, however, Tecsys is not entitled to dismissal.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the objections [#54] of the plaintiff are overruled;
2. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#47] filed
December 1, 2014, is approved and adopted as an order of this court;
3. That under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Defendant Tecsys, Inc.’s Renewed
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and Renewed Motion to Strike [#32] filed

2

September 5, 2014, is granted as to the following claims asserted in the complaint [#2]:
a. Claim Three in its entirety;
b. The portion of Claim Four which contains a claim for exemplary damages;
c. The portion of Claim Five alleging a breach of Section Ten of the License
Agreement between the parties;
d. Claim Six, except that portion of Claim Six which alleges a breach of Section
Ten of the License Agreement;
e. Claim Eight in its entirety;
f. The punitive damages claims asserted in Claims One, Two, Three, Four, and
Eight; and
4. That otherwise, Defendant Tecsys, Inc.’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint and Renewed Motion to Strike [#32] filed September 5, 2014, is
denied.
Dated September 3, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3