From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Samsung Elecs. Am. v. Vintage Tech.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Sep 28, 2021
20-cv-10771 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2021)

Opinion

20-cv-10771 (AJN)

09-28-2021

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Vintage Tech LLC, Defendant.


ORDER

ALISON J. NATHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed this action on December 21, 2020, seeking declaratory relief, indemnification, and damages for breach of contract against Defendant Vintage Tech LLC pursuant to two Master Services Agreements between the two parties that govern Vintage Tech's recycling of consumer electronic products on behalf of Samsung. Compl. ¶¶ 1-2, Dkt. No. 2. On January 26, 2021, Vintage Tech moved the Court to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio where a settlement that included Vintage Tech was pending approval. Def. Br. at 1, Dkt. No. 9-4; see Garrison Southfield Park LLC v. Closed Loop Refining and Recovery, Inc., 2:17-cv-00783-EAS (S.D. Ohio December 22, 2020), Dkt. No. 669; Olymbec USA LLC v. Closed Loop Refining and Recovery, Inc., 2:19-cv-01041-EAS (S.D. Ohio December 23, 2020), Dkt. No. 534. Both Vintage Tech and Samsung understood that the settlement, if approved, would “extinguish [Samsung's] contract claims” at the center of this case. Pl. Br. at 3, Dkt. No. 31; Def. Br. at 2-3. In addition to its motion to transfer filed to this Court, Vintage Tech filed a motion in the Southern District of Ohio to “enjoin Samsung from proceeding” with its case before this Court. Garrison Southfield Park LLC v. Closed Loop Refining and Recovery, Inc., 2:17-cv-00783-EAS (S.D. Ohio January 21, 2021), Dkt. No. 708.

In preparing the resolution of Vintage Tech's motion to transfer, the Court ascertained from the docket that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio issued an Opinion & Order dated September 27, 2021, that approved the settlement agreement “on the understanding that the contribution bar does not extend to claims for express breach of contract and contractual indemnification.” Garrison Southfield Park LLC v. Closed Loop Refining and Recovery, Inc., 2:17-cv-00783-EAS (S.D. Ohio September 27, 2021), Dkt. No. 787 at 29; see also Id. at 26 (stating that it would “exceed the bounds of substantive fairness [to] extinguish ] Vintage Tech's contractual obligations to non-settling Defendants, ” including Samsung). The court additionally denied Vintage Tech's motion to enjoin Samsung from proceeding in this case. Id. at 30.

The Court therefore DENIES Vintage Tech's motion to transfer, with leave to refile if any argument for the motion survived the Southern District of Ohio's Order. Dkt. No. 9.

The Court additionally GRANTS Samsung's motion for leave to file a replacement Exhibit A. Dkt. No. 35.

This resolves docket numbers 9 and 35.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Samsung Elecs. Am. v. Vintage Tech.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Sep 28, 2021
20-cv-10771 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2021)
Case details for

Samsung Elecs. Am. v. Vintage Tech.

Case Details

Full title:Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Vintage Tech LLC…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Sep 28, 2021

Citations

20-cv-10771 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2021)