KEYSTONE FOODS, LLC v. ATLANTIC DRY ICE, LLC

Filing 34

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARE OVERRULED AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED, EXCEPT AS TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES ON THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 7/8/2015. 7/9/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KEYSTONE FOODS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ATLANTIC DRY ICE, LLC,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 15-756

O R D E R
AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 2015, after review of the
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Thomas J. Rueter (ECF No. 16) and Defendant’s objections thereto
(ECF No. 24), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

(2)

Defendant’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation are OVERRULED;1 and

1

Defendant raised the following objections to Judge
Rueter’s Report and Recommendation: (1) Plaintiff’s negligence
claim is barred by the gist of the action doctrine;
(2) Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages should be dismissed
for failure to plead sufficient facts; and (3) Plaintiff’s
demand for attorneys’ fees and costs under an indemnification
clause in the parties’ contract should be dismissed because the
clause was only intended to relate to losses caused by third
parties. Def.’s Objections 2-12.
Considering Defendant’s objections in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiff as the nonmoving party, DeBenedictis
v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 492 F.3d 209, 215 (3d Cir. 2007), the
Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and denies the motion
to dismiss. The Court will consider these issues on a fuller

(3)

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is DENIED,
except as to punitive damages on the breach of
contract claim.2

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO,
J.

record at the motion for summary judgment stage.
2

To the extent that Plaintiff’s demand for punitive
damages is based upon its breach of contract claim, Defendant’s
motion to dismiss the demand for punitive damages is granted.
Under Pennsylvania law, “punitive damages are not recoverable in
an action solely based upon breach of contract,” Johnson v.
Hyundai Motor Am., 698 A.2d 631, 639 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997),
although such damages may be available in a tort action.
2