Teevee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH

19 Citing cases

  1. Media Glow Digital, LLC v. Panasonic Corp.

    16 Civ. 7907 (JFK)(HBP) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2019)

    Third, courts have held that where the crux of a plaintiff's claim is a breach of contract based on the sale of a defective product, any breach of services related to the sale or installation of that product are "merely incidental" to the sale and, thus, should not be considered "negligent performance of contractual services." American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. New York City Human Res. Admin., 833 F. Supp. 962, 983 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (Leisure, D.J.); accord Shema Kolainu-Hear Our Voices v. ProviderSoft, LLC, supra, 832 F. Supp. 2d at 207; TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, 00 Civ. 5189 (RCC), 2006 WL 2463537 at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2006) (Casey, D.J.). In TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, supra, 2006 WL 2463537 at *1, plaintiffs asserted breach of contract, fraud and negligence claims against defendant for "improperly manufactur[ing] a packaging system" for audio and video cassettes.

  2. Cedar Petrochemicals, Inc. v. Dongbu Hannong Chemical

    No. 06 Civ. 3972 (LTS)(JCF) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2011)

    CISG Advisory Council opinions and the one U.S. court to explicitly consider this issue have held that "`extrinsic evidence . . . should not be excluded, unless the parties actually intend the Merger Clause to have this effect'" and that "`Article 8 requires an examination of all relevant facts and circumstances when deciding whether the Merger Clause represents the parties' intent.'" See TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, No. 00 Civ. 5189 (RCC), 2006 WL 2463537, *8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2006) (quoting CISG-AC Opinion no. 3 ¶ 4.5 (Oct. 23, 2004)). Viewed in the light most favorable to Cedar, there is clearly a genuine dispute as to whether the parties intended the merger clause to exclude all extrinsic evidence.

  3. SCO Grp., Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.

    No. 16-4040 (10th Cir. Jan. 2, 2018)

    SCO therefore has standing to bring its misappropriation claim against IBM as an assignee of Santa Cruz's rights. IBM cites one unpublished federal case, TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, No. 00 Civ. 5189, 2006 WL 2463537 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2006), for the proposition that a non-party to a contract lacks standing to sue on the contract. But TeeVee Toons is materially different from the case before us: it did not involve any assignment or transfer of rights to a third party. 4.

  4. SCO Grp., Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.

    879 F.3d 1062 (10th Cir. 2018)   Cited 46 times
    Explaining "the improper-means requirement is satisfied where the means used to interfere with a party's economic relations are contrary to law, such as violations of . . . common-law rules."

    SCO therefore has standing to bring its misappropriation claim against IBM as an assignee of Santa Cruz's rights. IBM cites one unpublished federal case, TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, No. 00 Civ. 5189, 2006 WL 2463537 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2006), for the proposition that a non-party to a contract lacks standing to sue on the contract. But TeeVee Toons is materially different from the case before us: it did not involve any assignment or transfer of rights to a third party.

  5. SCO Grp., Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.

    874 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. 2017)

    SCO therefore has standing to bring its misappropriation claim against IBM as an assignee of Santa Cruz's rights. IBM cites one unpublished federal case, TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH , No. 00 Civ. 5189, 2006 WL 2463537 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2006), for the proposition that a non-party to a contract lacks standing to sue on the contract. But TeeVee Toons is materially different from the case before us: it did not involve any assignment or transfer of rights to a third party. 4.

  6. Dukas v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij, N.V.

    22-cv-7962 (RA) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 12, 2023)   Cited 3 times

    Those facts having been established, Plaintiff's Article III standing theory unravels, as she is unable to satisfy the injury prong. See Kraus v. Snow Teeth Whitening LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167176, *15 (finding no standing where plaintiff “did not see or rely on any of the advertisements before purchasing the [product]”); see also TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, 2006 WL 2463537 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2006) (no standing where plaintiff did not directly rely on any misrepresentations by defendant).

  7. Krape v. Lik Supply Corp.

    No. 21-CV-03742-AMD-JRC (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 15, 2022)

    TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, No. 00 Civ. 5189, 2006 WL 2463537, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2006) (quoting Delchi Carrier, 71 F.3d 1024 at 1030), plaintiff affirms that “because the delivery was to a local customer, [variable] costs would have been de minimis, less than $100.” Suppl. Ruiz Decl.

  8. Steadman v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts. Holdings

    21 Civ. 2430 (PGG) (RWL) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Defendant contends that New York law applies to Plaintiffs' common law fraud claim because Plaintiffs allege that Defendant made use of the New York Stock Exchange in furtherance of the alleged fraud. (Def. Br. (Dkt. No. 22) at 20 n.14 (citing, inter alia, TeeVee Toons v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, No. 00 Civ. 5189 (RCC), 2006 WL 2463537, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2006)))

  9. Steadman v. Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc.

    592 F. Supp. 3d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)   Cited 8 times

    Defendant contends that New York law applies to Plaintiffs’ common law fraud claim because Plaintiffs allege that Defendant made use of the New York Stock Exchange in furtherance of the alleged fraud. (Def. Br. (Dkt. No. 22) at 20 n.14 (citing, inter alia, TeeVee Toons v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, No. 00 Civ. 5189 (RCC), 2006 WL 2463537, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2006) )) Plaintiffs also reference "New York State law" in the complaint.

  10. Orica Australia Pty Ltd. v. Aston Evaporative Servs., LLC

    Civil Action No. 14-cv-0412-WJM-CBS (D. Colo. Jul. 28, 2015)

    CISG, art. 74. Courts applying this have often imported lost-profits standards similar to Colorado's. See, e.g., Delchi Carrier, 71 F.3d at 1029; Topp Paper Co., LLC v. ETI Converting Equip., 2013 WL 5446341, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2013); TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, 2006 WL 2463537, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2006). Moreover, Orica does not explicitly argue for a different standard, but instead focuses on showing that it has evidence to satisfy the Colorado standard.