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.

Toll Processing Services, LLC v. Kastalon

December 17, 2012

TOLL PROCESSING SERVICES, LLC PLAINTIFF,
v.
KASTALON, INC.; KASTALON POLYURETHANE PRODUCTS; AND KASTALON, INC. T/D/B/A KASTALON POLYURETHANE PRODUCTS DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lisa Pupo Lenihan Chief United States Magistrate Judge

ECF No. 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant=s Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 6) under 28 U.S.C. ' 1404(a) to the Northern District of Illinois is granted.

II. BACKGROUND

In this diversity case, Plaintiff, Toll Processing Services, LLC, a Delaware company with its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (APlaintiff), filed suit alleging conversion and negligence against Defendants, Illinois corporations with their principal places of business in Alsip, Illinois, collectively doing business as Kastalon Polyurethane Products (hereinafter referred to in the singular as ADefendant@). Plaintiff seeks damages arising out of the storage and eventual disposal of certain polyurethane-coated rolls used in steel processing.

In late 2006 Plaintiff purchased a used Apickle line,@ which included polyurethane-coated steel rolls (the Arolls@), from Joseph T. Ryerson & Sons in Chicago, Illinois (ARyerson@). The rolls are components of the pickle line. Plaintiff allegedly planned to have the rolls reconditioned so that it could reinstall and operate the pickle line at a new location.

In February and March of 2008 Plaintiff had the rolls shipped from Chicago to Defendant=s facility in Alsip, a distance of about 7.6 miles, with the apparent understanding that Defendant would store and, when requested by Plaintiff, recondition the rolls. Although no written agreement has been proffered,*fn1 the Defendants allegedly agreed to store the rolls free of charge until a purchase order to recondition the rolls was issued.

About seven months later in October 2008, E. Gus Schempp, of the Plaintiff, spoke with Michael DeMent, an officer and co-owner of the Defendant, to confirm that Defendant would not charge a fee for storage of the rolls and that a date for reconditioning of the rolls and the issuance of a purchase order was still to be determined. From that date Defendant stored the rolls while Plaintiff=s project to re-install the rolls at another location was allegedly in development.

Without any notice to or discussion with Plaintiff, Defendant greased and wrapped the rolls and moved them outdoors for storage, where they rusted. In late 2010, roughly two years after the communication between Mr. Schempp and Mr. DeMent and without any notice to Plaintiff, Defendant sold the rolls for scrap to Smith Salvage Company.

In June of 2011, a little over three years after first shipping the rolls to Defendant=s facility, Mr. Schempp contacted Defendant to request a quote for the reconditioning of the rolls because Plaintiff had located a buyer for the pickle line. It was at this time that Defendant informed Mr. Schempp that the rolls were no longer in their possession and had been sold for scrap.

Plaintiff commenced this action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, by filing a complaint on June 8, 2012. Defendant removed the action to the Western District of Pennsylvania by filing a Notice of Removal on July 7, 2012. Defendant now comes before this court on seeking to transfer venue to the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1404(a).

III. ...


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.