Manufacturers Collection Company LLC v. Precision Airmotive LLC et al

Filing 48

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 38 Motion to Continue and 39 Motion to Continue. The court strikes the current summary judgment reply filed by Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs Precision (docs. 43 , 44 ), as the court will allow them to jointly file replies to MCC's and AVCO's summary judgment responses and supplemental responses. MCC and AVCO shall have until 1/15/2013, to file supplemental responses to the pending 27 summary judgment motion. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 10/25/2012) (ctf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MANUFACTURERS COLLECTION
COMPANY, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
PRECISION AIRMOTIVE, LLC and
PRECISION AIRMOTIVE HOLDINGS,
LLC,
Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs,
LYCOMING ENGINES, an unincorporated
operating division of AVCO
CORPORATION,
Third Party Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-853-L

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs Precision Airmotive LLC and
Precision Airmotive Holdings LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed August 14, 2012; ThirdParty Defendant AVCO Corporation’s Motion for Continuance Pursuant to FRCP 56(d), filed
September 18, 2012; and Manufacturers Collection Company, LLC’s Motion for Continue Summary
Judgment Hearing, filed September 18, 2012. After the considering the motions, the court grants
Third-Party Defendant AVCO Corporation’s Motion for Continuance Pursuant to FRCP 56(d) (Doc.
38); grants Manufacturers Collection Company, LLC’s Motion for Continue Summary Judgment
Hearing (Doc. 39); and strikes the current summary judgment reply filed by Defendants and Third
Party Plaintiffs Precision Airmotive, LLC and Precision Airmotive Holdings, LLC (collectively,

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1

“Precision”) (Docs. 43-44), as the court will allow them to jointly file replies to MCC’s and AVCO’s
summary judgment responses and supplemental responses.
I.

Background
Plaintiff Manufacturers Collection Company, LLC (“MCC”) originally filed this case on

February 27, 2012, in the 44th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, against Precision,
seeking indemnity for all sums paid by Lycoming Engines, a Division of AVCO Corporation
(“AVCO”), to plaintiffs in the products liability action Pridgen, et al. v. Parker Hannifin, et al.
(“Pridgen Action”). According to MCC’s pleadings, the Pridgen Action was brought in the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, in July 2001, and arose out of the August
1, 1999 aircraft accident near Youngstown-Elser Metro Airport in North Lima, Ohio involving a
Piper Cherokee N5526J aircraft. The plaintiffs in the Pridgen Action contended that the aircraft
engine’s fuel system components, fuel delivery system, and fuel valve were defective, and caused
a loss of engine power that resulted in the aircraft accident that killed three people and injured one
person. MCC alleges that AVCO manufactured the engine and Precision manufactured the fuel
control components or carburetor in the Piper Cherokee N5526J.
Precision removed the case to federal court on March 22, 2012. On July 11, 2012, the court
entered a scheduling order, setting the deadline for discovery on July 1, 2013, and the dispositive
motion deadline for July 15, 2012. Precision moved for summary judgment on August 14, 2012.
On September 18, 2012, MCC and AVCO moved for a continuance under Rule 56(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. On the same day, MCC and AVCO also filed responses to Precision’s
summary judgment motion subject to their Rule 56(d) motions. The court addressed first the MCC’s
and AVCO’s Rule 56(d) motions.
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2

II.

Rule 56(d) Motions
Under Rule 56(d), if a summary judgment nonmovant “shows by affidavit or declaration that,

for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition,” the court may defer
ruling on or deny the summary judgment motion, provide the nonmovant with time to obtain
affidavits or conduct discovery, or issue any other appropriate order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). “[Rule
56(d) ] motions are broadly favored and should be liberally granted.” Culwell v. City of Fort Worth,
468 F.3d 868, 871 (5th Cir.2006). To obtain a continuance for purposes of obtaining discovery:
a party must specifically explain both why it is currently unable to present evidence
creating a genuine issue of fact and how a continuance would enable the party to
present such evidence. The non-moving party may not simply rely on vague
assertions that additional discovery will produce needed, but unspecified, facts in
opposition to summary judgment. If it appears that further discovery will not provide
evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact, the district court may grant
summary judgment.
Access Telecom, Inc. v. MCI Telecomm. Corp., 197 F.3d 694, 720-21 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied,
531 U.S. 917 (2000) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
AVCO and MCC both presented evidence in the form of declaration testimony that sets forth
a number of issues for which discovery is sought, including corporate representative deposition
testimony, to respond to Precision’s summary judgment motion. Much of the discovery needed
regards Precision’s acquisition of and the transfer of assets pertaining to the MA-4-5 carburetor line
and other discovery relating to Precision’s innocent seller argument. Precision counters that AVCO
and MCC have known that Precision would be moving for summary judgment no later than June
2012 and have nevertheless delayed in conducting discovery. Precision further contends that the
same documents now sought by AVCO were available to it in Pridgen Action.

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 3

In a separate objection filed on October 16, 2012, MCC also contends that Precision has
attempted to “backload” and inject new issues in its summary judgment reply brief and a supporting
affidavit, “such as whether the allegedly defective nature of the carburetor and its components was
at issue in the underlying suit,” which should have been included in its original motion. Obj. 1.
MCC further asserts that Precision is attempting to avoid the page limits for reply briefs and the
court’s denial of Precision’s prior request to file two summary judgment motions by attaching to the
affidavit a number of documents that appear to be briefing from the prior litigation. MCC contends
that it is prejudiced by not being able to respond to the new arguments and evidence, or alternatively,
that it should be allowed to respond and given 21 days from the date an order is entered to do so.
III.

Conclusion
The court determines that MCC and AVCO have met their burden and are entitled to a

continuance under Rule 56(d). Accordingly, the court grants Third-Party Defendant AVCO
Corporation’s Motion for Continuance Pursuant to FRCP 56(d) (Doc. 38) and Manufacturers
Collection Company, LLC’s Motion for Continue Summary Judgment Hearing (Doc. 39); and MCC
and AVCO shall have until January 15, 2013, to file supplemental responses to the pending
summary judgment motion. MCC’s combined page limit for its response and supplemental response
must not exceed the page limit applicable to summary judgment responses under Local Civil Rule
56. The same page limitation applies to AVCO’s response and supplemental response.
The court strikes the current summary judgment reply filed by Defendants and Third Party
Plaintiffs Precision (Docs. 43-44), as the court will allow them to jointly file replies to MCC’s and
AVCO’s summary judgment responses and supplemental responses. The replies may not include
matters raised for the first time and must be limited to issues raised by the summary judgment
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 4

motion, and MCC’s and AVCO’s responses and supplement responses. All responses and replies
shall adhere to the requirements and deadlines of Local Civil Rule 56 of this district, unless the court
grants leave to do otherwise. Given the age of this motion, the court will not grant any further
extensions of the deadlines set forth in Local Civil Rule 56.
It is so ordered this 25th day of October, 2012.

________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 5