Uretek (USA), Inc. v. Ureteknologia De Mexico S.A. De C.V.

Filing 25

ORDER entered GRANTING 21 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment. Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/15/2013, and Docket Call reset for 2/22/2013 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 11B before Judge Lee H Rosenthal. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

URETEK (USA), INC,
Plaintiff,
v.
URETEKNOLOGIA
DE MEXICO S.A. DE C.V.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-3060

ORDER
This is a breach-of-contract case between Uretek, an American company in the business of
developing technology for analyzing and repairing concrete, and Ureteknologia de Mexico (UdeM).
In 2003, Uretek entered into a sublicense agreement under which UdeM was permitted to use
Uretek’s proprietary technology and was required to purchase at least 100,000 pounds of Star 486
polyurethane foam annually from Uretek . (Docket Entry No. 15, ¶ 5). In 2009, Uretek agreed to
help UdeM perform its contract with Mexico City to repair its Metro system. (Id., ¶ 6). In May
2010, the heads of both companies met and discussed proposed revisions to the sublicense
agreement. (Id., ¶ 6). In this lawsuit, UdeM alleges that these revisions were executed and the
agreement amended. (Docket Entry No. 16, at 5–6). Uretek alleges that the proposed revisions did
not go beyond the draft stage and that its president did not intend to agree to them. (Docket Entry
No. 15, ¶ 8).
Uretek seeks a declaratory judgment that the amendment to the sublicense agreement was
not effective because of Uretek’s failure to execute it, lack of consideration, and fraud. (Id., ¶ 12).

Uretek seeks damages for UdeM’s alleged breaches of the original sublicense agreement, including
UdeM’s failure to purchase the contractually agreed minimum amounts of foam, and UdeM’s failure
to fully pay Uretek for its help in completing the Metro repair work. (Id., ¶ 14–16).

UdeM

pleads affirmative defenses to Uretek’s breach-of-contract claims, including waiver, ratification,
release, promissory and equitable estoppel, and the statute of frauds. (Docket Entry No. 16, at 4–5).
UdeM also asserts several counterclaims, asking for: a declaratory judgment that the sublicense
agreement modified by the May 18, 2010 revisions is valid and enforceable; damages for Uretek’s
breach of the modified sublicense agreement by refusing to provide it with the foam and other
services that it was required to provide; and specific performance. (Id. at 5 –7).
On October 19, 2012, UdeM moved for leave to file a summary-judgment motion and
attached a copy of the motion it wants to file. (Docket Entry Nos. 21, 22). The scheduling and
docket control order set September 14, 2012 as the deadline for filing pretrial motions. UdeM
justifies its tardy filing by stating that the parties had difficulties scheduling Uretek’s deposition of
UdeM’s president. Docket call is currently scheduled for November 16, 2012. Uretek opposes the
motion for leave, pointing out that it cannot properly finish its pretrial preparations if it has to
respond to a summary-judgment motion.
This court concludes that the combination of the scheduling difficulties the parties
apparently encountered and the fact that many of the issues may be amenable to resolution on
summary judgment together weigh in favor of granting the motion for leave. Uretek’s argument that
it will not have enough time to complete final pretrial preparations if its has to respond to the
summary-judgment motion is best met by extending the dates for filing the joint-pretrial order and

2

the docket call by 90 days. This extension will give enough time for Uretek to respond, the court
to rule, and the parties to complete the final pretrial work.
The motion for leave to file the summary judgment motion, (Docket Entry No. 21), is
granted. The summary-judgment motion, (Docket Entry No. 22), is deemed filed as of November
5, 2012. The joint pretrial order deadline is extended to February 15, 2013, and docket call is reset
to February 22, 2013, at 2:00 p.m.
SIGNED on November 5, 2012, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge

3