Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Terex South Dakota, Inc. v. Classic Gears & Machining, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

June 19, 2019

TEREX SOUTH DAKOTA, INC. Plaintiff,
v.
CLASSIC GEARS & MACHINING, INC., PRECISE WELDING, LLC, and A&P FABRICATING SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendants,
v.
Precise Welding LLC, and A&P FABRICATING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Third Party Defendants.

          RULING ON MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

          WARREN W. EGINTON SENIOR U.S DISTRICT JUDGE.

         In this action, plaintiff Terex South Dakota, Inc., alleges that defendant Classic Gears is liable under Connecticut law for improperly designed and manufactured sprockets. Plaintiff alleges (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of the implied warranty of fitness; (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (5) and express indemnity. Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the complaint to add claims of negligence and negligent non-disclosure under Wisconsin law. For the following reasons, the motion to amend will be granted.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff is a manufacturer of mobile utility equipment. It is a Delaware Corporation, with a parent corporation, Terex Corporation, located in Connecticut. Defendant Classic Gears is a Wisconsin corporation.

         This matter arises out of plaintiff's contracts to purchase from Classic Gears leveling sprockets manufactured by Classic Gears. The relevant contracts provided that the contracts would be construed in accordance with Connecticut law, and that disputes would be governed by Connecticut law.

         Plaintiff alleges that the sprockets were improperly designed or manufactured by Classic Gears.

         On June 30, 2017, the Court granted defendant leave to file a Third-Party complaint against A&P Fabricating Solutions, LLC and Precise Welding, LLC.

         On March 21, 2018, the Court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to include negligence claims against defendants A&P Fabricating Solutions and Precise Welding.

         Plaintiff represents that, in August 2018, defendants' corporate designees testified to facts indicating that plaintiff's design drawings had been modified by Classic Gears.

         The parties engaged in unsuccessful private mediation on December 20, 2018. In February, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to extend the scheduling deadlines, extending discovery to November 22, 2019.

         Plaintiff filed this motion to amend on April 25, 2019. The parties completed briefing the instant motion on June 5, 2019.

         DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint, although the scheduling order's deadline for amending the complaint has passed.

         Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend a pleading should be granted “freely … where justice so requires.” Reasons for a proper denial of leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, futility of the amendment, and perhaps most important, the resulting prejudice to the opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1963). Additionally, Rule 16(b) provides that scheduling orders should not be modified without “good cause” Thus, once the amendment deadline has passed, leave to amend may be denied ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.