AT&T Mobility LLC v. Holaday-Parks-Fabricators, Inc.
Filing
117
MINUTE ORDER by Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge. The Court sets oral argument on Source North America's Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. 78 , for Thursday, December 8, 2011, at 10:30. Source North America's Motion to Strike Surreply, docket no. 108 , is GRANTED. Holaday-Parks' Motion for Choice of Law, docket no. 90 , is GRANTED. (CL)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
5
6
7
8
AT&T MOBILITY LLC, a Delaware limited
liability corporation,
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
C10-468Z
HOLADAY-PARKS FABRICATORS, INC.,
a Washington Corporation,
12
MINUTE ORDER
Defendant,
13
14
15
16
17
18
v.
EVERGREEN POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a
Washington Corporation; SOURCE NORTH
AMERICA CORPORATION, an Illinois
corporation d/b/a Ace Tank & Fueling
Equipment, a Division of Source North
America Corporation; and PHILLIPS PUMP
LLC, a Connecticut domestic limited liability
company,
19
Third-Party Defendants.
20
21
The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas
S. Zilly, United States District Judge:
22
24
The Court sets oral argument on Source North America’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, docket no. 78, for Thursday, December 8, 2011, at 10:30. The
parties should be prepared to focus argument on the following:
25
(a)
23
26
(1)
Can the Court decide as a matter of law whether or not all or part of the
relationship between the parties is governed by Article 2 of the UCC?
What are the legal consequences of a decision by the Court that the
relationship between the parties is subject to the provision and
MINUTE ORDER - 1
limitations of Article 2 of the UCC? If the UCC applies to the entire
relationship between the parties, should the Court grant the Motion for
Summary Judgment?
1
2
(b)
Can the Court rule as a matter of law that the alleged “other services”
described in Holaday-Parks’ Opposition, docket no. 94 at 4-5, are
outside the work called for in the Purchase Order (Shafter Decl., docket
no. 79, Exhibits 11 and 12). In light of Mr. Giri’s admissions in the
record, can the Court conclude as a matter of law that Source North
America’s motion should be granted as to the “other services”?
(c)
Can the Court rule as a matter of law that the warranty limitations in the
Purchase Order apply to the “goods” and “commissioning services”?
(d)
3
Assuming the UCC applies, can the Court rule as a matter of law that
the warranty provisions and limitation of remedies in the Purchase
Order(s) do not fail of their essential purpose under RCW 62A.2719(2)?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(2)
Source North America’s Motion to Strike Surreply, docket no. 108, is
GRANTED.
(3)
Each party may file an additional brief, not exceeding 10 pages, addressing
what warranty, limitations or disclaimers apply in the event the Court
concludes that either (1) the entire relationship between Holaday-Parks and
Source North America Corp. is governed by the UCC, or (2) only the first two
categories (i.e., “goods” and “commissioning services” under the Purchase
Order) are governed by the UCC. Any additional brief must be filed by
December 2, 2011.
(4)
Holaday-Parks’ Motion for Choice of Law, docket no. 90, is GRANTED. The
construction contract at issue provides in part that “[t]he laws of the State of
Geogia shall govern the validity, construction, interpretation, and performance
of this agreement.” Construction Agreement Article 30 (docket no. 1-2).
AT&T points to no case where a court has applied one state’s law to a breach of
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
contract claim, but another state’s law to the affirmative defense of the claim.
Accordingly, the Court will apply Georgia law both to AT&T’s breach of contract
claims and to Holaday-Parks’ affirmative defenses to these claims.
19
20
(5)
21
22
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of
record.
Filed and entered this 18th day of November, 2011.
WILLIAM M. McCOOL, Clerk
23
s/ Claudia Hawney
24
By
Claudia Hawney
Deputy Clerk
25
26
MINUTE ORDER - 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?