ACROCORE EXTERIOR MOULDINGS, LLC v. DRYVIT SYSTEMS, INC. et al
OPINION. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 11/19/2020. (ld, )
Case 2:19-cv-22238-ES-MAH Document 50 Filed 11/19/20 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 719
Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-22238 (ES)
DRYVIT SYSTEMS, INC., et al.
MCNULTY, DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the motion of the defendants, Dryvit Systems, Inc.
and RPM International, Inc., for partial dismissal of the complaint filed by
plaintiff Acrocore Exterior Mouldings, LLC. (DE 12). 1 The Court’s jurisdiction is
based on diversity of state citizenship, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 2
Having considered the parties’ submissions, I decide this matter without oral
Citations to the record will be abbreviated as follows:
Complaint = Acrocore’s complaint, DE 1
Mov. Br. = Defendants’ brief in support of their motion to dismiss, DE 12-1
Opp. Br. = Acrocore’s brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion, DE 17
Reply Br = Defendants’ reply in support of their motion to dismiss, DE 21
Agreement = Parties’ agreement (including addendums) at issue in this lawsuit,
attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint, DE 1-1
In response to a query from chambers, plaintiff’s counsel represented that the
members of Acrocore Exterior Mouldings, LLC, are citizens of New Jersey. (DE 49);
see GBForefront, L.P. v. Forefront Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 888 F.3d 29, 34 (3d Cir. 2018)
(holding that “a limited liability company is a citizen of all the states of its members”). I
will therefore deem complete diversity, a jurisdictional prerequisite, to have been
adequately alleged. If contested, that issue may of course be explored in discovery.
Case 2:19-cv-22238-ES-MAH Document 50 Filed 11/19/20 Page 2 of 15 PageID: 720
argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). As set forth below, Defendants’ motion for
partial dismissal is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Acrocore, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, is a moulding
manufacturer with its principal place of business in Clifton, New Jersey. (Id. ¶¶
5 & 23). Defendant RPM is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Ohio,
which “owns subsidiaries that manufacture and market high-performance
coatings, sealants and specialty chemicals.” (Complaint ¶ 25). Defendant
Dryvit, a Rhode Island corporation headquartered in West Warwick, Rhode
Island, is one of RPM’s subsidiaries specializing in manufacturing exterior
cladding systems. (Id. ¶ 24).
On May 1, 2016, Acrocore and Dryvit entered into a four-year agreement
whereby Acrocore would purchase certain products (shape admixture, shape
extender, and shape mesh (the “Products”)) from Dryvit and then use the
Products to manufacture mouldings. (Id. ¶¶ 5 & 42–43). The manufactured
mouldings were then sold through Dryvit’s exclusive distribution network
under the brand name “Dryvit Shapes by Acrocore.” (Id. ¶¶ 9 & 43). The
mouldings were then integrated into Dryvit’s “Outsulation Systems” 3 and
installed on residential and commercial buildings. (Id. ¶ 7). Acrocore and Dryvit
signed two addendums which extended the Agreement to 2024. (Id. ¶ 6;
Agreement at 16–17 (ECF Pagination)).
“[A]n Outsulation System includes [m]ouldings, adhesive continuous insulation,
shape mesh embedded in a base coat, and finish, all of which are installed
sequentially on the exterior of commercial and residential buildings.” (Complaint ¶ 8).
Case 2:19-cv-22238-ES-MAH Document 50 Filed 11/19/20 Page 3 of 15 PageID: 721
Acrocore alleges that before entering into the Agreement, Dryvit assured
it that the Products would conform to Dryvit’s published data sheets, which
referenced compliance with certain standards set by the National Fire
Protection Association (“NFPA”) and the American Society for Testing and
Materials (“ASTM”). (Id. ¶¶ 12 & 33–36). In addition to these pre-Agreement
assurances, the Agreement itself provides that “the Products will conform in all
material aspects to Dryvit’s published data sheets for the Products with respect
to . . . testing.” (Id. ¶ 46 (quoting the Agreement ¶ 17)). As Acrocore alleges,
compliance with certain NFPA and ASTM standards is required by building
codes throughout the United States. (Id. ¶ 13).
Acrocore eventually learned that, despite the pre-Agreement assurances
and the Agreement’s terms, Dryvit had changed the Products’ composition,
resulting in mouldings and Outsulation Systems that were not compliant with
NFPA and ASTM standards. (Id. ¶¶ 17–18). In particular, Acrocore alleges on
information and belief that, at some point before the parties reached the
Agreement, Dryvit changed its supplier of the polymer additives in the Products
to reduce costs and increase profits. Despite this change, Dryvit did not
perform additional, required NFPA and ASTM testing. (Id. ¶¶ 17–18).
On October 30, 2019, Dryvit informed Acrocore that the published data
sheets were false and that the Outsulation Systems and integrated mouldings
were not in fact compliant with the requisite NFPA and ATSM standards. (Id.
¶ 15). In November 2019, Dryvit informed Acrocore that because the Products
failed to meet the agreed-upon standards, Dryvit was “unable and unwilling to
Case 2:19-cv-22238-ES-MAH Document 50 Filed 11/19/20 Page 4 of 15 PageID: 722
sell” products that would allow Acrocore to manufacture and sell codecompliant mouldings. (Id. ¶ 67). An officer of an RPM subsidiary allegedly took
the position that the contract was therefore “voided.” (Id. ¶ 20).
Acrocore initiated this lawsuit, asserting a breach of contract claim
against both Dryvit and RPM (Count I), a claim for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Dryvit (Count II), and a fraud
claim against Dryvit. (Count III). (Complaint ¶¶ 92–120). Defendants seek to
dismiss the breach of contract claim as against RPM only, and the fraud claim
against Dryvit. The motion is brought pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), but because I conclude that dismissal of the fraud
claim is warranted as a matter of law under ordinary Rule 12(b)(6) standards, I
do not separately discuss the heightened pleading standards for fraud claims
under Rule 9(b).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
To withstand a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The
plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but asks for
more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.
Case 2:19-cv-22238-ES-MAH Document 50 Filed 11/19/20 Page 5 of 15 PageID: 723
“When reviewing a motion to dismiss, all allegations in the complaint
must be accepted as true, and the plaintiff must be given the benefit of every
favorable inference to be drawn therefrom.” Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560,
563 (3d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court is not
required to accept as true “legal conclusions,” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Finally, “[i]n deciding a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion, a court must consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the
complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic
documents if the complainant’s claims are based upon these
documents.” Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010).
The Court analyzes the parties’ disputes under New Jersey law pursuant
to the Agreement’s choice of law provision. (Complaint ¶ 31; Mov. Br. at 4).
Breach of Contract
Defendants argue that Count I, the breach of contract claim, must be
dismissed insofar as it is asserted against RPM because RPM was not a party
to the Agreement between Dryvit and Acrocore. (Mov. Br. at 1 & 3–6). Plaintiff
does not dispute that RPM was not a signatory to the Agreement, and that the
Agreement states that it “benefits solely the parties to this Agreement and their
respective permitted successors.” (Opp. Br. at 2; Agreement ¶ 29). Plaintiff
nevertheless argues that RPM, as a parent corporation and pursuant to general
Case 2:19-cv-22238-ES-MAH Document 50 Filed 11/19/20 Page 6 of 15 PageID: 724
agency principles, can be held liable for Dryvit’s breach of contract. (Opp. Br. at
2 & 17–20).
To assert a breach of contract claim under New Jersey law, a Plaintiff
must allege three elements: (i) a valid contract between the parties; (ii) breach
of that contract; and (iii) damages resulting from that breach. Roper &
Twardowsky, LLC v. Snyder, No. 13-3945, 2014 WL 3012930, at *6. (D.N.J.
June 30, 2014). “A parent company is not normally liable for the contractual
obligations of its subsidiary.” Westdale Const., Ltd v. Liberty State Fin. Holdings
Corp., No. 09-2973, 2010 WL 1380380, at *5 (D.N.J. Apr. 1, 2010).
Nevertheless, Acrocore argues that RPM can be held liable for Dryvit’s
acts as RPM’s agent, irrespective of corporate veil-piercing. The cases Acrocore
cites for this proposition cite general principles of agency law, or the law of
states other than New Jersey. See Phoenix Canada Oil Co. Ltd. v. Texaco, 842
F.2d 1466 at 1477 (3d Cir. 1988) (citing to the Restatement (Second) of Agency
in a case where the underlying contract dispute hinged on application of
Delaware law); Expediters Int’ l of Wash., Inc. v. Direct Line Cargo Mgmt. Servs.,
Inc., 995 F. Supp. 468, 481 (D.N.J. 1998) (analyzing agency in connection with
a claim under the Restatement (Third) of Competition, not a contract claim
under New Jersey law); Graco, Inc. v. PMC Glob., Inc., No. 08-1304, 2009 WL
904010, at *12 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2009) (relying on Phoenix and Expediters);
Automated Salvage Transp., Inc. v. NV Koninklijke KNP BT, 106 F. Supp. 2d
606, 626 (D.N.J. 1999) (citing to Phoenix and explaining that in the Third
Case 2:19-cv-22238-ES-MAH Document 50 Filed 11/19/20 Page 7 of 15 PageID: 725
Circuit, a parent corporation can be held liable without piercing the corporate
The status of the doctrine of agency-based liability of a parent
corporation is somewhat less clear under New Jersey law. 5 Still, it has been
embraced by the intermediate appellate courts, based on the same general
agency-law principles cited above. See Alfano v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 925 A.2d
22, 27 (N.J. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 2007) (citing Phoenix and stating that “[w]hen
one corporation acts as the agent of a disclosed principal corporation, the latter
corporation may be liable on contracts made by the agent”); Med. Transcription
Billing, Corp. v. Randolph Pain Relief & Wellness Ctr., PC, No. A-4673-17T2,
2019 WL 1785321, at *6 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 23, 2019) (recognizing
that in New Jersey a parent corporation may be liable for a subsidiary’s
obligations where the subsidiary acts as the agent of the disclosed parent). I
therefore would not rule out this theory as a matter of law at the pleading
I am still required, however, to determine whether the complaint
plausibly alleges facts to support that agency theory. Even assuming New
Plaintiff cites to two other cases which discuss the substance of New Jersey
agency principles, but in different contexts. (Opp. Br. at 17 (citing Seltzer v. I.C. Optics,
Ltd., 339 F. Supp. 2d 601, 609 (D.N.J. 2004) (analyzing personal jurisdiction over a
parent company) and Sears Mortgage Corp. v. Rose, 634 A.2d 74, 79 (N.J. 1993)
(analyzing the relationship between a closing attorney retained by a purchaser and the
Acrocore and the Defendants debate the sufficiency of allegations to pierce the
corporate veil. (Opp. Br. at 19). That is not, however, the theory asserted by Acrocore,
which relies on the agency theory described supra to impose liability on RPM for
Dryvit’s breach of contract.
Case 2:19-cv-22238-ES-MAH Document 50 Filed 11/19/20 Page 8 of 15 PageID: 726
Jersey applies the agency principles cited by Acrocore, Acrocore’s allegations do
not suffice. It is true that we are not in the arena of veil-piercing; agency
principles do not require Acrocore to prove that the principal, here RPM,
“total[ly] dominat[es]” the subsidiary to hold the parent liable for the
subsidiary’s breaches. Graco, 2009 WL 904010, at *12 (quoting Expediters Int’ l
of Wash., 995 F. Supp. at 481). It is likewise true that whether a business
relationship rises to an agency relationship is generally a question of fact.
Intrepid Ins. Co. v. Paul Miller Auto, Inc., No. 11-6267, 2015 WL 519187, at *3
(D.N.J. Feb. 9, 2015). Nevertheless, Acrocore is not absolved of its
Twombly/Iqbal obligation to plausibly and factually allege agency. Specifically,
Acrocore must sufficiently plead not only an arrangement “between the two
corporations so that one acts on behalf of the other and within usual agency
principles, but the arrangement must be relevant to the plaintiff's claim of
wrongdoing.” Graco, 2009 WL 904010, at *12 (quoting Phoenix Canada Oil, 842
F.2d at 1477).
In the Complaint, Acrocore does not sufficiently allege that Dryvit was
acting as RPM’s agent when it entered into the Agreement. Indeed, the majority
of the allegations about the Agreement and the breach of the Agreement involve
only Dryvit. (See, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 5, 9, 12–15, 17, 19–21, 33–46, 56–57, 67
& 74). What Acrocore does allege is that RPM was the “moving force”
throughout the performance of the agreement and the alleged breaches.
(Complaint ¶¶ 4 & 104). Those moving-force allegations are summarized in
paragraphs 63 to 66 of the Complaint. Plaintiff alleges (i) that many of the
Case 2:19-cv-22238-ES-MAH Document 50 Filed 11/19/20 Page 9 of 15 PageID: 727
emails sent during the negotiations included a message that the email was “the
property of Dryvit/RPM [ ] or one of its operating companies” (id. ¶ 63); (ii) on
June 2, 2017, the vice president of corporate development for RPM emailed
Dryvit’s CEO stating that “both of [Acrocore’s] products -- the starter board and
shapes -- could be big winners for us” (id. ¶ 64 (alteration in original)); (iii)
during the negotiations of the second addendum to the Agreement, Acrocore
learned that Dryvit could not “negotiate and finalize” the second addendum
without RPM’s approval, pursuant to RPM’s instituted policy surrounding
contract review, which required RPM attorneys to sign off on the addendum (id.
¶ 65); and (iv) an executive for another non-party subsidiary of RPM obeyed
RPM’s directives concerning Dryvit’s performance under the agreement and
made the statement that “the Agreement is voided” (id. ¶¶ 66–70 & 79–80).
While these allegations may speak generally as to the relationship
between RPM and Dryvit, they do not plausibly allege an agency relationship in
connection with the Agreement. They appear to set forth fairly typical
coordination among entities in the same corporate family; unless more were
required, the principle of separate incorporation would be eroded. The
allegation that comes closest to describing any sort of agency relationship is
discussed in paragraph 65 of the Complaint. At best, however, this allegation
speaks to a general contract review policy of RPM; it does not suggest an
agency relationship in connection with this Agreement. 6
Moreover, the “moving force” allegations fall short of those that other courts
have deemed sufficient under Phoenix. See e.g., Graco, 2009 WL 904010, at *12
(denying motion to dismiss based on allegations of, inter alia, an overall scheme in
Case 2:19-cv-22238-ES-MAH Document 50 Filed 11/19/20 Page 10 of 15 PageID: 728
All of the foregoing, moreover, fails to account for the bedrock principle
that the parties are masters of their agreement and could contract for a
contrary result. This Agreement specifically provides that it “benefits solely the
parties to this Agreement and their respective permitted successors.”
(Agreement ¶ 29).
Based on the foregoing, I conclude that Acrocore has not adequately
alleged an agency relationship between RPM and Dryvit in connection with the
Agreement. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Count I against RPM is
GRANTED without prejudice.
Defendants argue that the fraudulent inducement claim against Dryvit
should be dismissed because, inter alia, the Agreement contains an integration
clause which supersedes any prior representations. (Mov. Br. at 1). Acrocore
responds that “an integration clause only defeats a claim for fraudulent
inducement where the alleged misrepresentations contradict, vary, or alter the
terms of the written contract”; because the alleged pre-Agreement
misrepresentations here are consistent with the Agreement, says Acrocore, the
which the related defendants worked closely with one another to accomplish a
common goal); Pullman v. Alpha Media Pub., Inc., No. 12-1924, 2013 WL 1290409, at
*20 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2013) (analyzing allegations that the parent had ultimate
control over subsidiary, there were overlapping business identities, common officers
and principal place of business, and key agreements executed by parent company
partners); Fuller v. Midland Credit Mgmt. Inc., No. 11-5111, 2014 WL 883757, at *7
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2014) (concluding that claims survived a motion to dismiss based on
allegations of, inter alia, overlapping officers and directors, common principal place of
business, and that the corporate form existed to insulate parent from liability). Such
cases must be read with care, however; I do not read them as holding that such facts
constitute some minimum threshold.
Case 2:19-cv-22238-ES-MAH Document 50 Filed 11/19/20 Page 11 of 15 PageID: 729
claim survives. (Opp. Br. at 8 & 14). The issue is not whether there is a cause
of action at all; rather, it is a question of drawing a line between claims of
fraudulent inducement and claims of breach of contract.
In general, where a contract contains an integration clause, the parol
evidence rule bars the introduction of evidence of extrinsic negotiations or
agreements to supplement or vary its terms. There is an exception, however, for
evidence of fraud in the inducement; such evidence is not offered to add or
change contract terms but to void the contract altogether. See Ocean Cape
Hotel Corp. v. Masefield Corp., 164 A.2d 607, 611 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
1960) (“[P]arol proof of fraud in the inducement is not considered as either
additional or substitutionary but rather as indicating that the instrument is, by
reason of the fraud, void or voidable.”); Walid v. Yolanda for Irene Couture, Inc.,
40 A.3d 85, 94 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2012) (noting that “extrinsic evidence
to prove fraud in the inducement is a well-recognized exception to the parol
evidence rule”). The alleged fraud, however, must concern a matter not
addressed in the agreement; in other words, the subject of the
misrepresentation must be extraneous to the agreement. See Travelodge
Hotels, Inc. v. Honeysuckle Enters., Inc., 357 F. Supp. 2d 788, 795 (D.N.J.
2005) (citing Filmlife, Inc. v. Mal “Z” Ena, Inc., 598 A.2d 1234, 1236 (N.J. Super.
Ct. App. Div. 1991)). Where, by contrast, misrepresentations made during the
course of negotiations are addressed by the terms of the contract, the claim
becomes one for breach of contract, not fraudulent inducement. In such a case,
Case 2:19-cv-22238-ES-MAH Document 50 Filed 11/19/20 Page 12 of 15 PageID: 730
the integration clause will bar the claim. RNC Systems, Inc. v. Modem Tech.
Grp., Inc., 861 F. Supp. 2d 436, 454 (D.N.J. 2012).
Here, the integration clause reads as follows:
This Agreement and all related schedules constitutes the sole
and entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject
matter contained herein and therein, and supersedes all prior
representations and warranties, both written and oral, with
respect to such subject matter.
(Agreement ¶ 22). Acrocore alleges that Dryvit fraudulently induced it to enter
into the Agreement by falsely representing that the Products, the mouldings,
and the Outsulation Systems into which the Products were integrated were
code-compliant (as provided in Dyrvit’s published data sheets). (Complaint ¶
115). In the Agreement itself, Dryvit “warrants that the Products will conform
in all material aspects to Dryvit’s published data sheets for the Products with
respect to . . . testing.” (Agreement ¶ 17). Because the Agreement itself
discusses conformance with Dryvit’s data sheets, Defendants argue that the
integration clause bars the fraudulent inducement claim.
Acrocore tries to save its fraudulent inducement claim by arguing that
Defendants, as well as other judges within this district, have misinterpreted
New Jersey case law. Specifically, Acrocore argues that under New Jersey law,
“a plaintiff may bring a claim for fraudulent inducement, even in the face of an
integration clause, so long as the alleged pre-contractual misrepresentations
are not directly contradicted by the terms of the written contract.” (Opp. Br. at
11 (emphasis added)). And because the pre-Agreement misrepresentations here
do not “alter or var[y] the express terms of the Agreement, the fraudulent
Case 2:19-cv-22238-ES-MAH Document 50 Filed 11/19/20 Page 13 of 15 PageID: 731
inducement claim must stand alongside the breach of contract claims.” (Id. at
14). In other words, according to Acrocore, the relevant inquiry is not only
whether the subject matter of the alleged misrepresentations is addressed, but
whether the misrepresentations contradict the relevant provisions of the
It does not appear that the Supreme Court of New Jersey has addressed
this issue specifically. Acrocore argues that relevant state appellate and trial
court decisions do not sweep as broadly as Defendants claim—i.e., that they do
not hold that an integration clause bars fraudulent inducement claims where
the misrepresentations are merely related to the subject matter of a contract.
(Opp. Br. at 8–13). But neither, as Defendants point out, do those cases
expressly require that a pre-contractual representation directly contradict the
terms of an integrated contract, as Acrocore claims. (Reply Br. at 8).
The District of New Jersey has approached the issue as Defendants do,
looking to whether the subject of the pre-contractual misrepresentations is
addressed within the contract. See e.g., Turbulent Diffusion Tech. Inc. v. Amec
Foster Wheeler N. Am. Corp., No. 15-7105, 2017 WL 1752951, at *7 (D.N.J. May
4, 2017) (dismissing fraudulent inducement claim where “all of the alleged
misrepresentations concern[ed] the same subject matter, [defendant’s] ability to
meet [a] code requirement”); Joseph McSweeney Enterprises, LLC v. Mister
Softee Sales & Mfg., LLC, No. 12-06332, 2013 WL 4588569, at *4 (D.N.J. Aug.
28, 2013); RNC Systems, 861 F. Supp. 2d at 455; Montclair State Univ. v. Oracle
USA, Inc., No. 11-2867, 2012 WL 3647427, at *10 (D.N.J. Aug. 23, 2011). I find
Case 2:19-cv-22238-ES-MAH Document 50 Filed 11/19/20 Page 14 of 15 PageID: 732
this line of cases persuasive. 7
As a line of demarcation between its fraudulent inducement claim and its
breach of contract claim, Acrocore suggests the following distinction: The preAgreement statements pertain to past facts about what Dryvit claimed to have
done, whereas the Agreement only speaks to Dryvit’s promise that the products
“will conform” to the data sheets. (See Opp. Br. at 5). The integration clause,
however, provides that the Agreement “supersedes all prior . . . representations
and warranties.” And those prior representations concern the conformity of the
goods; they are truly pertinent only insofar as they bear on Dryvit’s ability and
intent to perform under the contract. Applying the “subject matter” test
embraced by this District’s cases, I will dismiss the fraudulent inducement
claim and confine Acrocore to its contractual remedies. 8
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count III, the fraudulent
inducement claim, is GRANTED. 9
Such an interpretation is also consonant with the principle that the federal
courts should be wary of hijacking the interpretation of state law, bringing it into
areas where the state itself has not gone. See generally Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co.,
286 F.3d 661, 680 (3d Cir. 2002) (explaining that federal courts should “opt for the
interpretation that restricts liability, rather than expands it” until the state’s highest
court decides differently).
Even taken on its own terms, Acrocore’s argument that the pre-contract
representations do not alter or vary the Agreement is unconvincing. In the Agreement,
Dryvit warrants only that the Products “will conform” to the data sheets. The alleged
pre-Agreement representations about Dryvit’s past and then-present conformance with
the data sheets would expand the scope of Dryvit’s warranty on this subject in the
I do not reach Defendants’ arguments that dismissal of the fraudulent
inducement claim is warranted based on the economic loss doctrine and Rule 9(b).
Case 2:19-cv-22238-ES-MAH Document 50 Filed 11/19/20 Page 15 of 15 PageID: 733
Defendant’s motion for partial dismissal is GRANTED. Count I is
dismissed only insofar as it is asserted against RPM, and Count III, which is
asserted only against Dryvit, is likewise dismissed. As this is an initial motion
to dismiss, both dismissals are entered without prejudice to a properly
supported motion to amend within 30 days. Counsel are cautioned, however,
that any such amendment as to Count III would have to address the Court’s
legal view of the effect of the integration clause. An appropriate Order
accompanies this Opinion.
/s/ Kevin McNulty
Kevin McNulty, U.S.D.J.
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?