X-Ray Diagnostics and Ultrasound Consultants Limited v. General Electric Company et al
Filing
195
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 143 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 146 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Adopting 180 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 1/26/2025. See attached document for full details. (hs01)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 20-24492-CIV-GAYLES/TORRES
X-RAY DIAGNOSTIC AND
ULTRASOUND CONSULTANTS
LIMITED,
Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and
GE HEALTHCARE, INC.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on General Electric Company (“GE”) and GE
Healthcare, Inc.’s (“GE Healthcare”) (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment
(“Defendants’ Motion”), [ECF No. 143], and Plaintiff X-Ray Diagnostic and Ultrasound
Consultants Limited’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff’s Motion”), [ECF No.
146]. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and
Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 7]. On November 27, 2024, Judge Torres
issued his report recommending that Defendants’ Motion be granted in part and denied in part and
Plaintiff’s Motion be denied (the “Report”). [ECF No. 180]. Plaintiff and Defendants have timely
objected to the Report. [ECF Nos. 183, 184]
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which
objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings
that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific
objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint
Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,
208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
In his Report, Judge Torres recommended that the Court grant summary judgment in favor
of Defendants on the bulk of Plaintiff’s negligence claims (sub-paragraphs (a)-(d), (g), (h), (j)-(m),
(p) and (q) of Counts I and II), the entirety of Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claims (Counts IV and
V), and the majority of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims (Counts VI and VII). In addition, he
recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and deny
limited portions of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment such that the following claims
from Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 32], proceed to a bench trial:
•
Counts I & II (Negligence). Defendants allegedly breached their duty to Plaintiff by: (1)
failing to procure specialized equipment such as, but not limited to, the specialized custom
air compressor and specialized gases required for the Laboratory (sub-paragraphs e & n)
and (2) failing to choose and install an adequate and sufficient epoxy for the custom
flooring, resulting in the ultimate removal of and inability to install the Cyclotron for
several additional months extending the Completion of the Project (sub-paragraphs f & o).
In addition, GE Healthcare allegedly failed to inform Plaintiff that the Equipment could
not function properly on the 220-volt system, but instead collaborated with GE in order to
attempt a temporary fix by instructing the electrical contractors to make changes to the
2
electrical system in the Laboratory in a failed attempt to have the voltage reduced from
220-volt to 208-volt (sub-paragraph r).
•
Counts VI and VII (Breach of Contract) only to the extent that Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants breached the parties’ contract by failing to provide complete PET/CT training.
[ECF No. 180].
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including the parties’ objections,
and the law and agrees with Judge Torres’s well-reasoned analysis and recommendations. 1
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1)
Judge Torres’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 180] is ADOPTED in
FULL;
(2)
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 143], is GRANTED
a. as to sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (g), (h), (j), (k), (l), (m), (p), and (q) of
Counts I and II Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint;
b. as to Counts IV and V of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint;
c. as to Counts VI and VII of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint to the extent
that Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached the parties’ contracts by failing to
provide training in Sweden.
(3)
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 143], is DENIED
a. as to sub-paragraphs (e), (f), (i), (n), (o), and (r) of Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 32]; and
One of Defendants’ primary objections to the Report is that Judge Torres erred in finding that an expert testimony
on causation of damages was not required for the remaining negligence and breach of contract claims. While the Court
agrees with the Report’s findings and recommendations, it notes that, at trial, it is Plaintiff’s burden to prove causation
and damages—a tall, but not necessarily impossible, feat without expert testimony.
1
3
b. as to Counts VI and VII of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint to the extent
that Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached the parties’ contracts by failing to
provide complete PET/CT training.
(4)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 26th day of January, 2025.
________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?