Am. Mech. Solutions, L.L.C. v. Northland Process Piping, Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 April 2016
• Docket Number: No. CIV 13-1062 JB/SCY,CIV 13-1062 JB/SCY
• Citation: 184 F.Supp.3d 1030
• Parties: American Mechanical Solutions, L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. Northland Process Piping, Inc. and Unisource Manufacturing, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

184 F.Supp.3d 1030

American Mechanical Solutions, L.L.C., Plaintiff,

v.Northland Process Piping, Inc. and Unisource Manufacturing, Inc., Defendants.

No. CIV 13-1062 JB/SCY

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Filed April 30, 2016

Michael R. Demarcom, The Law Offices of Michael R. Demarco, McIntosh, New Mexico, Attorney for the Plaintiffs

Nicole M. Charlebois, Jessica Singer, Lindsey Rae Fooks, Chapman and Charlebois, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Daniel W. Lewis, Jenny L. Jones, Allen, Shepard, Lewis & Syra, P.A., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Northland Process Piping, Inc.

Jennifer G. Anderson, Tiffany L. Roach Martin, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Unisource Manufacturing, Inc.

MEMORANDUM OPINION¹

James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Stay of Remaining Pre-Trial Deadlines and Memorandum Brief in Support, filed March 2, 2015 (Doc. 81)("MSJ"). The Court held a hearing on June 24, 2015. The primary issue is whether Plaintiff American Mechanical Solutions, L.L.C. must produce expert testimony regarding causation to survive summary judgment on its breach-of-contract, breach-of-the-implied-warranty of merchantability, and breach-of-the-implied-warranty-of fitness-for-a-particular-purpose claims. The Court will grant in part and deny in part the MSJ. The Court will grant the MSJ on American Mechanical's breach-of-contract and breach-of-the-implied-warranty of merchantability claims. The Court will deny summary judgment on American Mechanical's breach-of-the-implied-warranty-of-fitness-for-a-particular-purpose claim. The Court concludes that, under New Mexico law, causation is an element for breach-of-contract and proximate causation is an element for breach-of-the-implied-warranty-of-merchantability claims. In this case, the cause of the exploding or leaking hoses at the Southwest Cheese Factory cannot be determined by resort to common knowledge that an average person ordinarily possesses. The Defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment on American Mechanical Solutions' breach-of-contract and breach-of-the-implied-warranty-of-merchantability claims, because American Mechanical has not submitted expert testimony on them. Because the Court concludes that neither causation nor proximate causation is a prima facie element for a breach of the implied-warranty-of-fitness-for-a-particular-purpose claim, however, it denies the MSJ as to that claim.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court will provide two factual background sections, because of the MSJ's unique posture.² First, the Court will provide a general factual background section based on the allegations in the Complaint. See Complaint for Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, and Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose, filed April 8, 2013 (Doc. 1-1)("Complaint"). Second, the Court will provide a short factual background section that sets forth the undisputed material facts based on the parties' briefing on the MSJ.

1. Factual Background from the Complaint.

American Mechanical is a corporation that operates in the State of New Mexico with its main office in Mountainair, New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 1, at 1. Defendant Northland Process Piping, Inc., is a corporation that operates in the State of New Mexico with an office in Roswell, New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 2, at 1. Defendant Unisource Manufacturing, Inc., is a corporation that operates in the State of New Mexico with an office in Albuquerque, New Mexico.³ See Complaint ¶ 3, at 2.

American Mechanical "is a specialty contractor working in the food and biodiesel industries providing installation and repair of food grade process piping with an emphasis in stainless steel welding." Complaint ¶ 6, at 2. Northland Piping and Unisource Manufacturing are both nationwide companies that supply food grade materials to the food and biodiesel industries. See Complaint ¶ 7, at 2. On or around October 7, 2012, Southwest Cheese Company, LLC issued American Mechanical "a purchase order to install (weld) hoses on eight (8) clarifiers. Each clarifier takes four (4) hoses for a total of thirty-two (32) hoses." Complaint ¶ 8, at 2. Southwest Cheese Company—one of the largest and most successful cheese and whey protein manufacturers in the world—has been doing business with American Mechanical for several years, which is a major source of income for the company. See Complaint ¶¶ 9-10, at 2. "The hoses and hose fittings that are at the core of this dispute were purchased from the defendant Unisource Manufacturing through defendant Northland Process Piping." Complaint ¶ 11, at 2. Unisource Manufacturing supplied "the hoses, fittings, dies and crimping equipment" to Northland Piping. Complaint ¶ 12, at 2. It also "supplied the technical training and support to NPP for the proper installation of the fittings onto the hoses." Complaint ¶ 13, at 3.

"The hoses with the attached crimped fittings were not off the shelf materials, but needed to be made to the custom length specifications ordered by AMS." See Complaint ¶ 14, at 3. When American Mechanical bought the materials, it notified Unisource Manufacturing of the use and custom specifications that would be required. See Complaint ¶ 15, at 3. "The manufacturer stated to AMS that they understood the specified use, and that there would be no problem." Complaint ¶ 16, at 3. "Immediately after extensive installation, the hoses began to fail." Complaint ¶ 17, at 3.

2. Factual Background from the MSJ.

American Mechanical "alleges that the hoses it installed at the Southwest Cheese plant failed." MSJ at 3 (setting forth this fact); Plaintiff's Response to Motion to for Summary Judgment and Response to Request for Stay of Remaining Pre-Trial Deadlines at 4, filed March 16, 2015 (Doc. 83)("Response")(not disputing this fact). American Mechanical alleges that the Defendants caused the hoses' failure. See MSJ at 3 (setting forth this fact); Response at 4 (not disputing this fact). American Mechanical alleges that the hoses' failure caused it damages. See MSJ at 3 (setting forth this fact); Response at 4 (not disputing this fact). Pursuant to the Court's July 9, 2014 Order Adopting in Part and Modifying in Part Joint Status Report and Provisional Discovery Plan and Setting Case Management Deadlines, filed July 9, 2014 (Doc. 29), American Mechanical Solutions' deadline to disclose its Rule 26 Experts was October 6, 2014. See MSJ at 3 (setting forth this fact); Response at 4 (admitting this fact). To date, American Mechanical has not disclosed an expert in accordance with Rule 26. See MSJ at 3 (setting forth this fact); Response at 4 (not disputing this fact). American Mechanical has no expert testimony that the Defendants caused any of the alleged hose failures. See MSJ at 3 (setting forth this fact); Response at 4 (not disputing this fact). American Mechanical has no expert testimony that the Defendants caused the harm which it alleges to suffered. See MSJ at 3 (setting forth this fact); Response at 4 (not disputing this fact).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

American Mechanical filed its case in state court on April 8, 2013. See Complaint at 1. The Defendants removed the case to federal court on October 29, 2013. See Defendants' Notice of Removal, filed October 29, 2013 (Doc. 1) ("Notice of Removal"). The Defendants invoked diversity jurisdiction representing that there is complete diversity of citizenship between American Mechanical and the Defendants. See Notice of Removal ¶¶ 10-19, at 3-5. In its Complaint, American Mechanical asserts causes of action for: (i) breach of contract, see Complaint ¶¶ 22-27, at 3-4; (ii) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, see Complaint ¶¶ 28-31, at 4; and (iii) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, see Complaint ¶¶ 32-36, at 4-5.

1. The MSJ.

The Defendants filed the MSJ on March 2, 2015. See MSJ at 1. The Defendants contend that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, because American Mechanical "cannot establish that the alleged failure of the hoses, about which it complains, was caused by the Defendants" and that it "cannot prove that its alleged harm was caused by the Defendants rather than by its own actions or the actions of a non-party." MSJ at 1. The Defendants first assert that American Mechanical lacks competent evidence that the Defendants caused the alleged hose failures. See MSJ at 3. They argue that the movant has the initial burden of establishing the absence of a material question of fact, but that a movant can discharge that burden by showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. See MSJ at 3-4. According to the Defendants, once the movant meets its burden, the burden shifts to the non-movant to demonstrate a genuine issue of trial on a material fact, and the plaintiff "may not rest on its pleadings; instead, it must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial as to those dispositive matters for which it carries the burden of proof." MSJ at 4 (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ). The Defendants contend that here, "for Plaintiff to establish that the alleged failure of the hoses was caused by the Defendants, it must show that Plaintiff's alleged damages were proximately caused by the actions or inactions of the Defendants rather than by Plaintiff's own actions, or the actions of a non-party." MSJ at 4. They argue that, in cases like this one, where causation evidence is "highly technical," expert testimony is necessary. MSJ at 4 (citing e.g.,Duran v. Gen. Motors Corp., 1983–NMCA–121, ¶ 48, 101 N.M. 742, 688 P.2d 779, 790 ). The Defendants insist that the cause of a leak in a commercial hose in a cheese manufacturing plant is a technical aspect that is beyond the...