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.

Barry-Wehmiller Design Group, Inc. v. Storcon Systems, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

December 1, 2014

BARRY-WEHMILLER DESIGN GROUP, INC., Plaintiff
v.
STORCON SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendant / Third Party Plaintiff
v.
IMPERIAL INDUSTRIES, INC. and JENICKE & JOHANSON, INC., Third Party Defendants

For Barry-Wehmiller Design Group, Inc., Plaintiff: Walter T. Grabowski, LEAD ATTORNEY, Holland, Brady & Grabowski, P.C., Wilkes-Barre, PA.

For Storcon Systems, Inc., Defendant: Charles T. Young, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins, York, PA.

For Storcon Systems, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff: Charles T. Young, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins, York, PA.

For Imperial Industries, Inc. Third Party Defendant: Thomas P. Bracaglia, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Philadelphia, PA.

MEMORANDUM

William W. Caldwell, United States District Judge.

I. Introduction

We are considering a motion to dismiss filed by Third-Party Defendant Jenicke & Johanson, Inc. (hereinafter J& J). (Doc. 23). This matter relates to a dispute concerning the structural failure of a silo system. Following the silo's failure, Plaintiff Barry-Wehmiller Design Group filed breach of warranty claims against Storcon Systems, Inc. (Doc. 1). In turn, Storcon filed a third-party complaint against J& J, alleging negligent misrepresentation. (Doc. 7). On September 9, 2014, J& J filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss Storcon's negligent misrepresentation claim without prejudice.

II. Background

Plaintiff Barry-Wehmiller Design Group was hired by Church & White Co., a non-party to this action, to act as construction manager and consultant in the fabrication of a 300 ton silo system. (Doc. 33 at 3). Plaintiff Barry-Wehmiller, in turn, entered into a contract with Storcon Systems, Inc. to design, manufacture and deliver the silo system. (Id.). Church & White employed J& J to determine the design specifications and load calculations for the silo and its component parts. (Id.). J& J determined that the silo needed to be designed and manufactured to withstand a density of 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and informed Storcon of its calculations. (Doc. 33 at 4). The silo was constructed in July 2013, and five days after construction was completed, the silo suffered a structural failure. (Doc. 33 at 5).

Barry-Wehmiller filed a complaint against Storcon, alleging that the failure resulted from Storcon's negligent design. (Doc. 1). Storcon filed a third-party complaint against J& J, alleging that J& J did not exercise reasonable care in the calculation of the design specifications and load calculations. (Doc. 7). J& J filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that Storcon's claim should be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 23). J& J makes two arguments in support of its position: (1) the complaint is facially deficient because it fails to plead any facts; and (2) Storcon fails to state a facially plausible claim because Storcon did not, in fact, rely on the design specifications and load calculations supplied by J& J. (Doc. 33). In a two sentence response, Storcon seems to agree that the complaint is facially deficient. Storcon states that it does not oppose the dismissal of J& J as a party, but posits that the dismissal should be without prejudice.[1] Therefore, the only question for us to resolve is whether J& J should be dismissed with or without prejudice.

III. Discussion

A. Legal Standards

Ordinarily, facially deficient claims must be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend the complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 (" The Court should freely give leave when justice so requires . . . ."). This is true even if the plaintiff has not requested leave to amend. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dammann & Co., 594 F.3d 238, 256 n.14 (3d Cir. 2010). A court may deny leave to amend, however, and dismiss the complaint with prejudice if, inter alia, the amendment would be futile. Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 236 (3d Cir. 2008). " 'Futility' means that the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In assessing 'futility, ' the district court applies the same standard of legal sufficiency as applies under Rule 12(b)(6)." In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997).

To state a legally sufficient claim for negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must show the following: (1) the defendant, in the course of business, supplied false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions; (2) the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information; (3) the plaintiff justifiably relied upon the information; and (4) such reliance caused pecuniary loss. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS ยง 552 ...


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.