Marsulex Environmental Technologies v. Selip S.P.A.

Filing 50

ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry) Upon consideration of Defendant's second motion to dismiss, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum (doc. 49), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said motion 42 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab on 3/27/2017. (ktt)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARSULEX ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, Plaintiff, v. SELIP S.P.A., Defendant. : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL NO.: 1:15-CV-00269 (Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab) ORDER March 27, 2017 Upon consideration of Defendant’s second motion to dismiss, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum (doc. 49), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said motion (doc. 42) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. To the extent that Selip moves to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, the motion is DENIED. Provision 27 of the terms and conditions to the parties’ Purchase Order is not an exculpatory clause; it is a limitation of liability clause. The provision does not exempt or otherwise immunize either party from any particular cause or causes of action. Rather, it merely limits the type of damages that the parties can recover against one another. To the extent, however, that Selip moves to dismiss Count I of the amended complaint, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff may not recover in tort for economic losses suffered as a result of harm or injury to property that it does now own. Thus, Count I of the amended complaint, alleging strict liability, is DISMISSED from this action. S/Susan E. Schwab Susan E. Schwab United States Chief Magistrate Judge 2

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?