Teevee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH

12 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. 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 IBM cites one unpublished federal case, TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, No. 00 Civ. 5189, 2006 WL 2463537 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2006), for the proposition that a non-party to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.

  3. 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 IBM cites one unpublished federal case, TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, No. 00 Civ. 5189, 2006 WL 2463537 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2006), for the proposition that a non-party to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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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).

  6. 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.

  7. Davis v. Brown

    12-CV-1906 (SJF)(SIL) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 15, 2014)

    The remaining claims asserted by Davis against PODS in the Amended Complaint for negligence and intentional negligence also stem from the Rental Agreement between PODS and Brown, and thus, Davis lacks standing to assert those claims. See TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, No. 00 Civ. 5189, 2006 WL 2463537, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2006) ("Because Plaintiff's negligence claim is based on the [contract between two other parties], [plaintiff] lacks standing to assert the negligence claim for the same reasons that [plaintiff] lacks standing to assert the breach-of-contract claims."). Accordingly, PODS' motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to Davis's claims in the Amended Complaint.

  8. Zoo v. Seneca Hardwoods LLC

    13 CV 4358 (PKC)(LB) (E.D.N.Y. May. 23, 2014)   Cited 16 times
    Denying attorneys' fees where they were not mentioned in the emails which formed the agreement

    "[T]he standard formula to calculate lost profits is 'to deduct only variable costs from sales revenue ... because [] fixed costs would have been encountered whether or not the breach occurred.'" 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 1029). The cancelled invoices filed by plaintiff accurately reflect that customer orders were placed on December 12, 2012 and January 1, 2012 for Walnut S&B hardwood with an order completion date of February 20, 2012; however, plaintiff has provided no documents or estimate as to the costs - either variable or fixed - associated with these potential sales.

  9. Boyd v. J.E. Robert Co.

    05-CV-2455 (KAM) (RER) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2012)   Cited 6 times
    In Boyd, the court concluded that "[l]iens for mandatory water and sewer charges imposed by New York City as an incident to property ownership are not 'debt' under the FDCPA because the relationship between [property owners]."

    (Second Am. Compl. ¶171.) Beyond the complaint, Plaintiffs have not alleged, much less argued in their opposition, that they were party to any contract between Defendants and outside counsel, and the record does not substantiate such a claim. See, e.g., JP Morgan Chase v. J.H. Elec. of NY., Inc., 893 N.Y.S.2d 237, 239 (2d Dep't 2010) (identifying the existence of a contract as an essential element of a breach of contract claim (citations omitted)); TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, No. 00-CV-5189 (RCC), 2006 WL 2463537, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2006) ("As a general rule, absent status as an intended third-party beneficiary, one may sue on a contract only if one is a party to that contract.") (citing 3 Farnsworth, Farnsworth on Contracts §10.1 (2d ed. 2001)). 1. Defendants Are Entitled to Summary Judgment on Boyd's Breach of Contract Claim as to the Forbearance Agreement.

  10. ECEM EUROPEAN CHEMICAL MARKETING B.V. v. PUROLITE COM

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-3078 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2010)   Cited 1 times
    Finding discussions evidenced a dispute for the purposes of FRE 408 where the parties were not "simply attempting to renegotiate its deal or payment terms . . . for a debt with an agreed upon amount."

    In other words, Article 8(3) requires due consideration to be given to all relevant circumstances regardless of whether Article 8(1) or 8(2) applies. See Miami Valley Paper, LLC v. Lebbing Eng'g Consulting GmbH, No. 05-702, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25201, *12 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 26, 2009) (citing Article 8(2) for the proposition that "CISG contains no parol evidence rule, but allows the Court to consider statements or conduct of a contracting party to establish, modify, or alter the terms of a contract"); Calzaturificio Claudia s.n.c. v. Olivieri Footwear Ltd., No. 96-8058, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4586, *18 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 1998) ("[C]ontracts governed by the CISG are freed from the limits of the parol evidence rule and there is a wider spectrum of admissible evidence to consider in construing the terms of the parties' agreement."); TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. Gerhard Schubert GmbH, No. 00-5189, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59455, *22 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2006) (finding that unlike American law, the CISG has no parol evidence rule). "Consequently, the standard UCC inquiry regarding whether a writing is fully or partially integrated has little meaning under the CISG and courts are therefore less constrained by the `four corners' of the instrument in construing the terms of the contract."