From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

South Jersey Gas Company v. Mueller Company, Ltd.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage
Apr 27, 2010
Civil No. 09-4194 (RBK-JS) (D.N.J. Apr. 27, 2010)

Summary

holding that discovery of breach necessarily must occur during the warranted period

Summary of this case from Cohan v. Pella Corp.

Opinion

Civil No. 09-4194 (RBK-JS).

April 27, 2010


ORDER


THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon a motion by Defendants Mueller Company, LTD and Mueller Group, LLC (collectively, "Mueller Defendants") to dismiss the Complaint of Plaintiff South Jersey Gas Company ("Plaintiff") for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, for summary judgment, and upon a motion by Defendants Eclipse, Inc., Rockford Eclipse, Inc., and Eclipse Combustion and/or Power Equipment, Co. (collectively, "Eclipse Defendants") to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim; and the Court having considered the submissions of the parties; and for the reasons expressed in an Opinion issued today;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Mueller Defendants' alternative motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and

Plaintiff is HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Court will treat the Eclipse Defendants' motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d); and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until May 7, 2010 to respond to the converted motion.

Dated: 4-27-2010


Summaries of

South Jersey Gas Company v. Mueller Company, Ltd.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage
Apr 27, 2010
Civil No. 09-4194 (RBK-JS) (D.N.J. Apr. 27, 2010)

holding that discovery of breach necessarily must occur during the warranted period

Summary of this case from Cohan v. Pella Corp.

holding that discovery of breach must necessarily occur during the warranted period

Summary of this case from Alexander v. Pella Corp.

In South Jersey Gas, the court found that the warranty under consideration was one for future performance because, as the court there wrote, "[t]his warranty appears to contain a promise that the Valves will be of a certain character (free from defects in workmanship and material) for a specified period of time in the future (one year from the date of shipment)."

Summary of this case from Wiseberg v. Toyota Motor Corp.

noting that the requirement of specificity is the hallmark distinction between a warranty of future performance and all other warranties because “all warranties refer to the future, [but] all warranties do not explicitly extend to future performance”

Summary of this case from In Matter of Fort Totten Metrorail Cases
Case details for

South Jersey Gas Company v. Mueller Company, Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:SOUTH JERSEY GAS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MUELLER COMPANY, LTD., MUELLER…

Court:United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage

Date published: Apr 27, 2010

Citations

Civil No. 09-4194 (RBK-JS) (D.N.J. Apr. 27, 2010)

Citing Cases

Wiseberg v. Toyota Motor Corp.

"This provision quite clearly establishes a general rule, that the discovery principle does not apply to…

Van Orden v. Borough of Woodstown

Defendants styled their first motion as a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of…