Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v. Young Equip. Sales, Inc.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
• Writing for the Court: JOHN G. KOELTL, United States District Judge
• Citation: Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v. Young Equip. Sales, Inc., 331 F.Supp.3d 221 (S.D. N.Y. 2018)
• Decision Date: 19 September 2018
• Docket Number: 15-cv-4244 (JGK)
• Parties: GYM DOOR REPAIRS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. YOUNG EQUIPMENT SALES, INC., et al., Defendants.

331 F.Supp.3d 221

GYM DOOR REPAIRS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.YOUNG EQUIPMENT SALES, INC., et al., Defendants.

15-cv-4244 (JGK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed September 19, 2018

Eric Su, FordHarrison LLP, Brian Gerard Friel, Miller & Associates, P.C., New York, NY, Katherine Jane Daniels, Katherine Daniels LLC, North Salem, NY, Cindy Miller Cieslak, Fordharrison, LLP, Hartford, CT, Jeffrey Douglas, Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP, Mineola, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Patrick McCormick, Christine Malafi, Joseph Kenneth Poe, Campolo, Middleton & Associates, LLP, Ronkonkoma, NY, Eryn Yee Kwai Truong, Campolo, Middleton & Associates, LLP, Bohemia, NY, William J. McDonald The Law Offices of William J. McDonald, P.C Garden City, NY 11530 Jonathan Adam Siegel Office of the New York State Attorney General Jason Joseph Snyder, Meredith Rosen Cavallaro, Paduano & Weintraub, L.L.P., New York, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN G. KOELTL, United States District Judge

The plaintiffs Gym Door Repairs, Inc. ("GDRI") and Safepath Systems LLC ("SPS") (together, the "plaintiffs") brought this suit against nineteen defendants to obtain permanent injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs for the defendants' alleged infringement of the plaintiffs' patent, copyrights, and trademarks, and -- under New York State law -- for unfair competition, tortious interference with business relationships, and civil conspiracy. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants have illegally inspected, maintained or repaired safety systems for electrically operated folding partitions, called the "Safe Path System," that the plaintiffs sold to New York State schools.

In 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. In an Opinion and Order dated September 9, 2016, the Court dismissed the following defendants from the case: Dennis Schwandtner, New York State School Facilities Association, School Facilities Management Institute, Nassau County BOCES, New York City Department of Education, Richard Young, and Brian Burke. Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v. Young Equip. Sales, Inc., 206 F.Supp.3d 869, 917 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (" Gym Door I").¹ The Court also dismissed some of the claims against the remaining defendants.

The Court denied motions for reconsideration filed by the defendant Thurnau and the plaintiffs, but allowed the plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint. Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v. Young Equip. Sales, Inc., No. 15cv4244, 2016 WL 6652733, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2016). Only one defendant, ESBOCES, filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 8, 2017, the Court dismissed the tortious interference claim against ESBOCES but denied the motion to dismiss the civil conspiracy claim. Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v. Young Equip. Sales, Inc., No. 15cv4244, 2017 WL 933103, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2017).

The following claims and defendants remain in this case:

Defendant Outstanding Claim(s)
                Young Equipment Sales, Inc. and YES     • Tortious interference
                Service and Repairs Corporation         • Civil conspiracy
                (together, the "Young Defendants")      • Copyright infringement
                Eastern Suffolk BOCES ("ESBOCES")       • Civil conspiracy
                                                        • Copyright infringement
                Bellmore Public Schools ("Bellmore")    • Copyright infringement
                Total Gym Repairs, Inc. ("Total Gym     • Tortious interference
                Repairs")                               • Trademark infringement
                                                          and unfair competition
                Carl Thurnau                            • Tortious interference
                                                        • Civil conspiracy
                Tri-State Folding and Peter Mucciolo    • Tortious interference
                (together, the "Tri-State               • Copyright infringement
                Defendants")                            • Trademark infringement
                                                          and unfair competition
                Guardian Gym Equipment, Qapala          • Tortious interference
                Enterprises, Inc., and James            • Copyright infringement
                Petriello (together, the "Guardian      • Trademark infringement
                Defendants")                              and unfair competition
                

All remaining defendants have moved for summary judgment on all outstanding claims against them, with the exception of the Young Defendants, who have not moved for summary judgment on the claim of copyright infringement against them.

For the following reasons, the motions for summary judgment are granted .

I.

The standard for granting summary judgment is well established. "The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ; Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd. P'ship, 22 F.3d 1219, 1223 (2d Cir. 1994). "[T]he trial court's task at the summary judgment motion stage of the litigation is carefully limited to discerning whether there are any genuine issues of material fact to be tried, not to deciding them. Its duty, in short, is confined at this point to issue-finding; it does not extend to issue-resolution." Gallo, 22 F.3d at 1224. The moving party bears the initial burden of "informing the district court of the basis for its motion" and identifying the matter that "it believes demonstrate[s] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The substantive law governing the case will identify those facts that are material and "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) ); see also Gallo, 22 F.3d at 1223. Summary judgment is improper if any evidence in the record from any source would enable a reasonable inference to be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. See Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 37 (2d Cir. 1994). If the moving party meets its burden, the nonmoving party must produce evidence in the record and "may not rely simply on conclusory statements or on contentions that the affidavits supporting the motion are not credible." Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York, 996 F.2d 522, 532 (2d Cir. 1993). See also Wesley-Dickson v. Warwick Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 973 F.Supp.2d 386, 390-91 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff'd, 586 F. App'x 739 (2d Cir. 2014).

II.

The plaintiffs in this action are GDRI and SPS. Stephen and Kathleen Cole are the sole owners of GDRI and SPS. Thurnau Rule 56.1 ¶ 8. GDRI was incorporated in or about 1977. ESBOCES Rule 56.1 ¶ 1. GDRI performs maintenance, installation, and repair of electrically operated partition doors ("EOPs") and related safety devices for school gyms. ESBOCES Rule 56.1 ¶ 2.

In 2001, after unattended EOPs caused at least two fatal accidents, New York State enacted Education Law § 409-f. The law requires that every EOP:

be equipped with safety devices which, subject to standards established in rules and regulations promulgated by the commissioner, stop the forward motion of the partition or room divider and stop the stacking motion of the partition or room divider when a body passes between the leading panel of such partition or divider and a wall, or when a body is present in the stacking area of such partition or divider.

Educ. Law § 409-f(3).

After the enactment of Education Law § 409-f, GDRI developed a safety device that could be installed on EOPs to bring the EOP into compliance with the law. The safety device stops the door from moving forward or backward if it senses an obstruction in its path (the "Safe Path System"). Thurnau Rule 56.1 ¶ 13. Beginning in 2003 -- and largely in 2003 and 2004 -- Gym Door installed Safe Path Systems in schools all over New York State. Thurnau Rule 56.1 ¶ 16.

This lawsuit concerns the maintenance of these Safe Path Systems. Broadly, the plaintiffs argue that the regulation implementing Education Law § 409-f -- 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 155.25 ("Regulation 155.25") -- requires that the maintenance of Safe Path Systems be accomplished only by the plaintiffs or by technicians that are authorized to work on Safe Path Systems by the plaintiffs. They argue that the defendants have ignored Regulation 155.25 and interfered with the plaintiffs' right to maintain the Safe Path Systems that they installed.

Regulation 155.25 was adopted in October 2002. Thurnau Rule 56.1 ¶ 2. Regulation 155.25 sets forth requirements for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the safety devices that are required to be installed on EOPs. Regulation 155.25(c), (d). With respect to the maintenance of the safety equipment, Regulation 155.25 states: "All equipment must be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, including the manufacturer's recommended service interval, and records of such maintenance shall be permanently retained at the district or private school." Regulation 155.25(d)(4).

The manufacturer's instructions for the Safe Path Systems "require the use of certified technicians to maintain and repair SAFE PATH systems." Pls.' Response to ESBOCES Rule 56.1 ¶ 100; see also Pls.' Response to Thurnau Rule 56.1 ¶ 38. The plaintiffs argue that, because of this language in their manufacturer's instructions, Safe Path Systems must be maintained by either SPS or GDRI, or another dealer that is authorized by SPS or GDRI to complete the maintenance. See, e.g., Pls.' Response to Thurnau Rule 56.1 ¶¶ 37-38; Pls.'...