Yaskawa America Inc. - Motoman Robotics Division v. Intelligent Machine Solutions, Inc.
Filing
18
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING IMS'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 9 ) AND OVERRULING MOTOMAN'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDEDCOMPLAINT (Doc. 13 ). IMS's Motion for Partial Judgment On the Pleadings (doc. 9 ) is GRANTED. Counts I, II and III of Motoman's Amended Complaint remain to be adjudicated. Motoman's Motion To Amend (doc. 13 ) is OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 7/14/14. (ep)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
YASKAWA AMERICA, INC.
MOTOMAN ROBOTICS DIVISION,
Case No. 3:14-cv-084
Plaintiff,
Judge Thomas M. Rose
-vINTELLIGENT MACHINE SOLUTIONS,
INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING IMS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. #9) AND OVERRULING
MOTOMAN’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT (Doc. #13)
______________________________________________________________________________
The complaint in this matter is brought by Plaintiff Yaskawa America, Inc. Motoman
Robotics Division (“Motoman”) against Defendant Intelligent Machine Solutions, Inc. (“iMS”).
Motoman’s Complaint was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio,
on February 13, 2013. The Complaint was amended on February 18, 2014. The Amended
Complaint was then removed to this Court on March 13, 2014, based upon this Court having
diversity subject matter jurisdiction.
Motoman brings seven (7) claims in the Amended Complaint. (Doc. #4.) Count I is for
breach of second contract. Count II is for breach of implied warranties of merchantability second contract. Count III is for breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose second contract. Count IV is for defective manufacture or construction in violation of Ohio Rev.
Code § 2307.74. Count V is for defective design in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.75.
Count VI is for defect due to nonconformance with manufacturers’ representation in violation of
Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.77, and Count VII is for negligence.
Now before the Court is a Motion for Partial Judgment On the Pleadings (“MJOP”) (doc.
#9) brought by iMS and a Motion for Leave To File a Second Amended Complaint (“Motion To
Amend”) (doc. #13) brought by Motoman. Both are fully briefed and ripe for decision. A
relevant factual background will first be set forth followed by the applicable legal standard and
an analysis of iMS’s MJOP and an analysis of Motoman’s Motion To Amend.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In the context of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court must accept as true
all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, or in this case, the Amended Complaint.
The Court may also consider court decisions and other public records. Motoman’s Amended
Complaint makes the following relevant factual allegations:
Motoman is a manufacturer and developer of automation products and solutions. (Am.
Compl. ¶ 5.) It is an Illinois for-profit corporation with its principle place of business in Ohio in
Miamisburg, Ohio. (Id. at ¶ 1.)
IMS is a designer, manufacturer and supplier of machined metal rail/track products on
which robots can travel or move while performing defined tasks. (Id. at ¶ 6.) It is a Michigan forprofit corporation with its principle place of business located at Norton Shores, Michigan. (Id. at
¶ 2.)
In July of 2011, the Toyota Corporation (“Toyota”) engaged Motoman to develop an
automation and robotic solution to assist with the assembly and handling of transmissions (the
“Toyota Transmission Robot”) at Toyota’s manufacturing and assembly plant in Buffalo, West
Virginia. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Motoman contracted with iMS to assist in manufacturing the carriage
-2-
transport system upon which the Toyota Transmission Robot would travel while performing its
programmed operations (the “First Contract”). (Id. at ¶¶ 9-16.) The First Contract was performed
and satisfied and is not the subject of Motoman’s Amended Complaint. (See Id. at ¶ 17.)
In the fall/winter of 2012, Toyota requested Motoman to develop an automation and
robotic solution identical to the Toyota Transmission Robot but capable of traveling at higher
speeds. Motoman again contacted iMS to facilitate the design and production of this new system.
(Id. at ¶ 19.)
IMS represented to Motoman that, rather than manufacture a new carriage transport
system, the existing iMS carriage transport system could handle the higher speeds with the
addition of new components manufactured by iMS and some minor modifications of the existing
carriage transport system. (Id. at ¶ 20.) Motoman then contracted with iMS to provide the new
components and make the modifications to the existing system (the “Second Contract”). (Id. at
¶¶ 21-27.) Motoman fully paid for the new components and modifications. (Id. at 28.)
The new carriage transport system suffered and continues to suffer multiple catastrophic
system failures such that the Toyota Transmission Robot has been out of service for extended
periods of time. Further, the original carriage transport system has required, and may continue to
require, significant repairs to correct iMS’s alleged poor workmanship. (Id. at ¶ 31.)
IMS has refused to remedy the carriage transport system failures. (Id. at ¶ 32.) As a
result, Motoman has allegedly incurred, and continues to incur, damages associated with its
evaluation of the carriage transport system failures and the costs associated with repairing and/or
replacing the failed carriage transport system. (Id. at ¶ 33.) Also as a result, the lawsuit that is
now before the Court, was filed.
-3-
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c)
IMS has moved for partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).
“The standard of review for a Rule 12(c) motion is the same as for a motion under Rule 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fritz v. Charter Township of
Comstock, 592 F.3d 718, 722 (6th Cir. 2010)(citing Ziegler v. IBP Hog Market, Inc., 249 F.3d
509, 511-12 (6th Cir. 2001)).
To avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), 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 Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)). The plausibility standard is not like a probability requirement. Id. The plausibility
standard seeks more than a possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a
complaint does not permit a court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the
complaint has not shown that the complainant is entitled to relief. Id. at 679.
When considering a 12(c) motion, all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings
of the opposing party are taken as true. Fritz, 592 F.3d at 722. Also, the well-pleaded material
allegations are construed in a light most favorable to the opposing party. Gunasekera v. Irwin,
551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009). However, legal conclusions are not accepted as true nor are
recitations of the elements of a cause of action. Fritz, 592 F.3d at 722. The Rule 12(c) motion is
granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Id.
ANALYSIS OF MJOP
IMS has moved for partial judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of Counts IV, V,
-4-
VI and VII of Motoman’s Amended Complaint. The basis for the dismissal of these Counts of
Motoman’s Amended Complaint, according to iMS, is that the law does not allow a commercial
customer to maintain claims of negligence and strict/product liability where solely economic
damages are alleged. Motoman responds that the “economic loss doctrine” does not require the
dismissal of these Counts because it has made allegations of other property damage caused by
iMS’s negligence and by iMS’s defective design and component products. Motoman does not
argue that Counts IV, V, VI and VII do not sound in negligence and strict/product liability (tort).
Thus, the resolution of this matter turns on whether Motoman is seeking only economic
damages.
The Economic Loss Doctrine
The economic loss doctrine “prohibits purchasers of products from recovering purely
economic damages under most tort theories.” HDM Flugservice GMBH v. Parker Hannifin
Corp., 332 F.3d 1025, 1028 (6th Cir. 2003). However, the doctrine does not prevent recovery for
damage to property other than the defective product. Id. at 1030. Finally, if the parties have a
contractual relationship, they may not sue in strict liability or implied warranty for their
economic damages, but instead must rely on the Uniform Commercial Code’s (“U.C.C.”)
contractual remedies.” Id. at 1029.
The Court next turns to the Ohio Supreme Court1 to determine what are economic
1
The Parties do not argue that the law of a state other than Ohio is specifically implicated
here. Thus, as a federal court located in Ohio exercising diversity jurisdiction, this Court must
apply Ohio substantive law. Hisrich v. Volvo Cars of N. America, Inc., 226 F.3d 445, 449 (6th
Cir. 2000). This Court must apply the substantive law of Ohio “‘in accordance with the thencontrolling decision of the highest court of the state.”’ Imperial Hotels Corp. v. Dore, 257 F.3d
615, 620 (6th Cir. 2001)(quoting Pedigo, M.D. v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America, 145 F.3d 804,
808 (6th Cir. 1998)).
-5-
damages. “Generally speaking, a defective product can cause three types of injury: personal
injury, property damage, and economic loss.” Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. American
Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company, 537 N.E.2d 624, 629 (Ohio 1989). Personal injury is
self-explanatory and is not alleged in this case. Id. Property damage is generally damage to the
defective product itself or damage to other property. Economic loss (damage) may be either
direct or indirect. Id. Direct economic damage includes the loss attributable to the decreased
value of the product itself. Id. Indirect economic damage includes the consequential losses
sustained by the purchaser of the defective product. Id.
Examples of economic damages are additional expenses incurred because the product did
not perform as expected. Id. at 631. Also, consequential expenses are generally economic
damages. Id. at 629. Economic damages typically includes the cost of repair or replacement of
the defective product. Id. However, a product’s self-inflicted damage is generally considered
property damages, except, where the buyer and seller are in privity of contract, the product’s
self-inflicted damage is considered economic damage. Id. at 630-31.
Motoman’s Pleadings
For the purposes of this MJOP, Motoman and iMS were in privity, that is, they had
entered into the Second Contract. Also, Motoman pleads in its Amended Complaint that:
31.
As a direct result of IMS’ failed design, manufacturing and installation of
the new carriage transport system components and modifications
contemplated by the Second Contract, the original carriage transport
system contemplated by the First Contract has required, and may continue
to require, significant repairs to correct the poor workmanship of IMS
under the Second Contract.
-6-
(Am. Compl. ¶ 31) (emphasis added.)
Analysis of Motoman’s Pleadings
IMS wants the Court to consider the damage to the original carriage transport system to
have been done by an alleged defective component. Thus, there was no alleged property damage
i.e. damage to another product. This argument is based upon the Sixth Circuit’s determination in
Flugservice that damage to the integrated product by an alleged defective component is not
“other property damage.” Flugservice, 332 F.3d at 1030-31. Said another way, if the purchaser
of a product were allowed to sue component manufacturers for the damage due to the integrated
product, the purchaser would be able to circumvent the economic loss rule by recovering in tort
instead of being limited to contract remedies. Id. at 1031.
Motoman wants the Court to consider the damage to the original carriage transport
system to have been done by the allegedly defective contract design and components provided
under the Second Contract. In other words, Motoman argues that what it considers to be the
“new carriage transport system” damaged the “original transport system.”
Motoman elected to purchase new carriage transport system components and to contract
with iMS for minor modifications to the current carriage transport system. IMS then completed
the installation of the new carriage transport system components and the installation of the
modifications. (Am. Compl. ¶ 27.)
The Court reasons that there is no longer an “original” carriage transport system.
According to the pleadings, the “original” carriage transport system has been modified by the
addition of new components and by the modification of existing components. Further, if there is
no “original” carriage transport system, then the “original” carriage transport system cannot now
-7-
be damaged. Thus, any damages must be, based upon a reading of the Amended Complaint, to
the new carriage transport system and must, therefore, be economic damages. As a result, since
Motoman cannot sue iMS, with whom it is in privity, in tort for economic damages, all of
Motoman’s tort claims must fail.
The Parties do not dispute that Counts IV, V, VI and VII of Motoman’s Amended
Complaint sound in tort. Therefore, they must be dismissed.
IMS’s Motion for Partial Judgment On the Pleadings (doc. #9) is GRANTED. Counts I,
II and III of Motoman’s Amended Complaint remain to be adjudicated.
ANALYSIS OF MOTION TO AMEND
Motoman seeks to amend its Amended Complaint (doc. #13) to allege additional
technical details regarding the damage incurred by it. The proposed additional factual allegations
include facts that were, according to Motoman, only recently discovered. The additions proposed
by Motoman detail alleged damages to the original carriage transport system done by the
defective iMS Second Contract design and components. The additions also assert that the
original carriage transport system is a complete loss and will now require replacement.
IMS has opposed Motoman’s Motion To Amend. (Doc. #15) IMS argues that the
proposed amendments do not correct legal deficiencies that it has raised and it will be prejudiced
if it has to again answer and file another motion addressing the same issues as it addressed in its
MJOP.
Based upon the reasons more fully stated above, there is no longer an “original” carriage
transport system. Thus, any damages must be, based upon a reading of the Amended Complaint,
to the new carriage transport system or a result of the new carriage transport system and must,
-8-
therefore, be economic damages. Therefore, Motoman’s proposed Second Amended Complaint
would be futile. Thus, Motoman’s Motion To Amend (doc. #13) is OVERRULED.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio this Fourteenth Day of July, 2014.
s/Thomas M. Rose
_______________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
-9-
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?