Honda Jet Ltd. v. Honda Aircraft Co.
| Decision Date | 26 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:19cv1046 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | HONDA JET LIMITED, L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. HONDA AIRCRAFT COMPANY, LLC, Defendant. |
This case comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a recommendation on (1) "Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment" (Docket Entry 41) (the "Plaintiff's Motion"); (2) "Honda Aircraft Company's Motion for Summary Judgment" (Docket Entry 43) (the "Defendant's Motion"); (3) "Honda Aircraft Company's Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses Chris Gillis and William 'Bo' Fielding" (Docket Entry 47) (the "Expert Motion"); and (4) "Honda Aircraft Company, LLC's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's March 8, 2021 Notice" (Docket Entry 60) (the "Motion to Strike"). For the reasons that follow, the Court should deny Plaintiff's Motion, grant Defendant's Motion, deny the Expert Motion as moot, and grant the Motion to Strike in part.
Alleging breach of warranty in connection with the purchase of an aircraft, Honda Jet Limited, L.L.C. (the "Plaintiff") initiated this action against Honda Aircraft Company, LLC (the "Defendant"). (See Docket Entry 1 (the "Complaint"), ¶¶ 1, 5-6, 17-22.) Defendant answered the Complaint (Docket Entry 10), and the parties commenced discovery (see Text Order dated Dec. 13, 2019 (adopting, with one clarification, joint Rule 26(f) Report)). Thereafter, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. (See Docket Entry 41; see also Docket Entry 42 (supporting memorandum).) Defendant responded in opposition (Docket Entry 52), and Plaintiff replied (Docket Entry 57). Defendant likewise sought judgment in its favor via Defendant's Motion (Docket Entry 43; see also Docket Entry 44 (supporting memorandum)), which also stands fully briefed (see Docket Entries 55, 58).
In this action, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant violated its contractual warranty obligations by failing to deliver an aircraft "that was free and clear of defects and that would meet its essential purpose of providing safe transportation without material downtime to address problems, including faulty electronics" (Docket Entry 1, ¶ 1). According to the Complaint (and attachments thereto):
In 2006, Plaintiff entered into an agreement (Docket Entry 1-8) (the "Agreement") with Defendant "for the future purchase of a HondaJet Aircraft" (the "Aircraft"). (Docket Entry 1, ¶ 10.) After amendments to the Agreement (see id., ¶ 12),1 Plaintiff accepted delivery of the Aircraft in March 2017 (id., ¶ 13). According to Plaintiff, "[t]he Aircraft failed to conform to the [ A]greement and the warranty provided." (Id., ¶ 14.)2 More specifically, "[s}ince the purchase of the Aircraft, [Plaintiff] has been required to return the Aircraft to North Carolina for the repair of many substantial and material defects." (Id., ¶ 16.) Plaintiff attached as exhibits to the Complaint invoices and other records documenting such repairs. (Id., ¶ 15 (incorporating Docket Entries 1-1, 1-2).) The Complaint alleges that "[Plaintiff] has incurred significant expense and damages as a result of theserequired repairs and the related downtime that has prevented its use of the Aircraft." (Id., ¶ 16.)
Based on the foregoing, the Complaint lodges a breach-of-warranty claim against Defendant. (Id., ¶¶ 17-22.) In particular, the Complaint alleges that, "[b]y its conduct, including the sale to [Plaintiff] of the defective Aircraft, [Defendant] has breached its warranty to [Plaintiff]." (Id., ¶ 18.) As a remedy, the Complaint seeks "judgment against [Defendant] for all expenses and other damages incurred by [Plaintiff]" (id., ¶ 19), as well as an order "requiring [Defendant] to replace the Aircraft with a similar aircraft that is free of defects and is airworthy" (id., ¶ 20).3
In support of their respective positions, the parties submitted numerous exhibits, including, inter alia, a declaration by one of Defendant's senior managers, James Schofield ("Schofield") (Docket Entry 45) (the "Schofield Declaration"); copies of agreements between the parties (to include the "Final Warranty" (Docket Entry 45-2 at 26-30));4 the Aircraft's maintenance entries and logbooks (and associated invoices) (Docket Entries 42-5, 42-13, 42-15, 42-16, 42-19, 42-36, 45-4, 45-5);several service bulletins5 (Docket Entries 42-18, 42-34, 42-35, 42-37) and airworthiness directives6 (Docket Entries 42-11, 42-20, 42-21); Plaintiff's discovery requests and Defendant's responses (Docket Entries 46-13, 46-14); excerpts from several depositions (Docket Entries 42-3, 42-4, 42-6, 42-8, 42-14, 42-25, 42-28, 46-2, 46-4, 46-8, 46-9); flight logs pertaining to (i) the Aircraft (Docket Entries 46-5, 46-6) and (ii) two pilots who have flown it (Docket Entries 46-7, 46-16); Plaintiff's expert witness disclosures (Docket Entry 46-10 at 2-4); the reports from two such witnesses (id. at 6-8; Docket Entry 46-12); and various correspondence (Docket Entries 42-30, 42-38). The record reflects the following:
A. Agreement and Final Warranty
The Agreement details many aspects of the transaction, to include "price and payment terms" (Docket Entry 1-8, ¶ 2 (all-caps font omitted)), "inspection and acceptance" (id., ¶ 5 (all-caps font omitted)), "default and termination" (id., ¶ 9 (all-caps font omitted)), "warranty provisions" (id., ¶ 11 (all-caps fontomitted)), and "governing law" (id., ¶ 12 (all-caps font omitted)). The Agreement describes the preliminary specifications of the Aircraft and obligates Defendant to furnish Plaintiff with final data before delivery. (See Docket Entry 1-8, ¶ 1; see also id. at 10 (preliminary specifications).) The first paragraph of the warranty provision provides as follows:
The Aircraft shall be furnished with the limited warranty provided in Exhibit C [an attachment to the Agreement] . . . . It is understood that Exhibit C is preliminary in content and is subject to revision by [Defendant]. [Defendant] will provide [Plaintiff] with the final limited warranty at the time of delivery of the final Specification under Section l of the Agreement, which warranty will be within what is reasonable and customary in the industry for an aircraft warranty. The final warranty in the form of a revised Exhibit C, shall be incorporated herein by reference and shall supersede and replace the preliminary version or the prior updated version, as applicable. Any customer support services package (if agreed to by the Parties) will be agreed to separately.
(Id., ¶ 11.)
Under the Agreement, Plaintiff bore the obligation to inspect the Aircraft prior to acceptance (id., ¶ 5(a)) and notify Defendant about any discrepancies, to include deviations from "the warranted condition of the Aircraft (including workmanship) . . . [that] has a material effect on the Aircraft's appearance, operation or performance" (id., ¶ 5(b)). The parties further agreed that "any discrepancies discovered or alleged after [acceptance] shall be subject only to the rights and remedies available to [Plaintiff] under the Warranty, if and to the extent available." (Id.) Theparties chose North Carolina law to govern the Agreement. (Id., ¶ 12.)
On April 11, 2016, the parties signed Amendment 4, which replaced the preliminary warranty provision in the Agreement. (Docket Entry 45-2 at 2 ().) In particular, "[Defendant] warrant[ed] to [Plaintiff] that, at the time of the initial delivery to Plaintiff, . . . the Aircraft shall be free from defects in material and defects in manufacture." (Id. at 26 (parenthetical omitted).) The Final Warranty defines a defect as (Id. at 30.) Additionally, the Final Warranty excludes from coverage the "repair or replacement of consumable parts and materials (batteries, brakes, filters, gaskets, seals, O-rings, tires, etc.)." (Id. at 26.)
"[Defendant]'s sole obligation and liability for a breach of th[e foregoing] warranty is limited to repairing, replacing or correcting, at [Defendant]'s sole discretion, the defective part orcondition . . . ." (Id.)7 Lastly, the Final Warranty provides, in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial