Lopez v. Delta Int'l Mach. Corp.

Decision Date15 March 2018
Docket NumberCIV 15–0193 JB/GBW
Citation312 F.Supp.3d 1115
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
Parties Ismael LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. DELTA INTERNATIONAL MACHINERY CORPORATION; Delta Machine Company, Inc.; Rockwell International Corporation; Rockwell Automation, Inc.; Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.; Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc.; Pentair, Inc.; Kearney & Trecker Corporation and GLH, LLC, Defendants.

Joseph Cervantes, Cervantes Law Firm, Las Cruces, New Mexico and Joseph G. Isaac, Scherr & Legate, P.L.L.C., El Paso, Texas, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.

Donald A. DeCandia, Tomas J. Garcia, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendants Delta International Machinery Corporation, Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Rockwell Automation, Inc., and Pentair, Inc.

Stephen Simone, Chapman and Priest, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant GLH, L.L.C.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Rule 59 Motion for New Trial and/or to Alter or Amend the Judgment, filed August 23, 2017 (Doc. 107)("Motion"). The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court clearly erred when it relied on a contract that Plaintiff Ismael Lopez submitted in supplemental briefing in granting Stanley Black & Decker Inc.'s Motion and Brief for Summary Judgment, filed December 29, 2015 (Doc. 48)("MSJ"); and (ii) whether the Court abused its discretion in denying Lopez' request to dismiss Defendants Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (collectively "Black & Decker Defendants")'s MSJ despite Lopez' assertions that he needed further discovery to oppose the MSJ. The Court concludes that it did not err in either granting the MSJ or in denying Lopez additional time for discovery. Under rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must consider the records that parties cite, and may consider other documents that are in the record. Thus, it did not err when it reviewed and relied upon a contract that is in the record and that the parties cited in supplemental briefing. Moreover, the Court did not err under rule 56(f)(2), because it gave notice to Lopez at the hearing that it would use the contract in its opinion. The contract comports with rules 901 and 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, so it is admissible evidence, and the Court's consideration of it on summary judgment is proper. Finally, the Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez a chance for additional discovery, because Lopez does not identify any material that would affect the Court's ruling. Accordingly, the Court denies Lopez' Motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court draws its facts from its previous Memorandum Opinion, 2017 WL 3142028, filed July 24, 2017 (Doc. 105)("MOO") and its Order, filed September 16, 2016 (Doc. 102)("Order") disposing of the MSJ. In his Motion, Lopez does not assert that the Court erred factually in its MOO or Order, so the Court omits its footnotes from the MOO analyzing the parties' factual arguments. See Motion at ¶¶ 18–39, 8–21. See also MOO at 3–14, 2017 WL 3142028, at *2–7. The Court also relays some factual allegations from the pleadings for context.

1. The Amended Complaint's Factual Allegations.

Lopez resides in Sunland Park, New Mexico. See Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Personal and Injury Damages ¶ 1, at 1, filed December 18, 2015 (Doc. 45)("Amended Complaint"). On August 23, 2012, Lopez was sawing wood for 84 Lumber1 in El Paso, Texas with an unguarded table power saw. See Amended Complaint ¶ 5, at 2. While he was sawing, the blade jumped, and severed Lopez' left middle and left index fingers. See Amended Complaint ¶ 5, at 2. Lopez accordingly brings product liability claims against the Black & Decker Defendants. See Amended Complaint ¶ 6, at 2–3.

2. Undisputed Facts.

"The events giving rise to this lawsuit ... occurred entirely in El Paso, Texas." MSJ ¶ 11, at 4 (asserting this fact). See the Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) Motion in Opposition to Defendant Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48), or Alternative Motion to Extend Time to File Response at 1–16, filed January 15, 2016 (Doc. 53), and the Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) Motion in Opposition to Defendant Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48), or Alternative Motion to Extend Time to File Response at 1–16, filed January 15, 2016 (Doc. 54)(collectively, the "MSJ Response/Motion")(not disputing this fact);2 Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief in Support of Rule 56(f) Motion in Opposition to Defendant Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48), or Alternative Motion to Extend Time to File Response at 1–8, filed July 12, 2016 (Doc. 90)("Suppl. Brief")(not disputing this fact).

The Black & Decker Defendants "did not design, manufacture, market or sell the subject table saw." MSJ ¶ 1, at 3 (asserting this fact). See MSJ Response/Motion at 1–16 (not disputing this fact); Suppl. Brief at 1–8 (not disputing this fact). "The subject table saw, a Delta Unisaw Model 36–812, serial number 01E31821, was manufactured by Delta International Machinery Corp. [ ] in May of 2001." MSJ ¶ 2, at 3 (asserting this fact). See MSJ Response/Motion at 1–16 (not disputing this fact); Suppl. Brief at 1–8 (not disputing this fact).

Delta Intl. was a subsidiary of Pentair, Inc., a Minnesota corporation. See MSJ ¶ 3, at 3 (asserting this fact); MSJ Response/Motion at 1–16 (not disputing this fact); Suppl. Brief at 1–8 (not disputing this fact). On July 16, 2004, the Black & Decker Corp. executed an agreement with Pentair, Inc. to acquire Pentair, Inc.'s and its affiliates' "Intellectual Property" and "all of the[ir] outstanding shares of capital stock, membership interests and other ownership interests (the ‘Equity Interests’)" in several "Transferred Subsidiaries." Suppl. Brief ¶ 12, at 4 (asserting this fact)(quoting Purchase Agreement between the Black & Decker Corporation and Pentair, Inc. at 1 (dated July 16, 2004), filed July 12, 2016 (Doc. 90–1)("Purchase Agreement") ). One of the transferred subsidiaries in which The Black & Decker Corp. acquired equity interests is Delta Intl. See MSJ ¶ 3, at 3 (asserting this fact); MSJ Response/Motion at 1–16 (not disputing this fact); Suppl. Brief at 1–8 (not disputing this fact). As of 2004, "Delta continues to exist as a separate and distinct legal entity," but "as an indirect subsidiary of The Black & Decker Corporation." MSJ ¶ 3, at 3 (asserting this fact). See MSJ Response/Motion at 1–16 (not disputing this fact); Suppl. Brief at 1–8 (not disputing this fact).

In the Purchase Agreement, the Black & Decker Corp. and its "Affiliates" agree to purchase from Pentair, Inc. and its "Affiliates designated on Schedule 1.1 (each a ‘Seller’[) ] ... the Equity Interests" and "the U.S. Intellectual Property." Suppl. Brief ¶ 13, at 4–5 (asserting this fact)(emphases omitted)(quoting Purchase Agreement § 1.1, at 1). See Black and Decker Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief [Doc 90] (Filed Under Seal) at 1–5, filed July 29, 2016 (Doc. 94)("Suppl. Brief Response")(not disputing this fact). Schedule 1.1, in turn, lists Pentair Tools Group, Inc. (DE)—Pentair, Inc.'s affiliate—as the "Seller" of "Equity Interests" in Delta Intl., and Delta Acquisition Corp.—The Black & Decker Corp.'s affiliate—as the "Purchaser" of those interests. Schedules to Purchase Agreement Between The Black & Decker Corp. and Pentair, Inc. (the "Agreement") at 2, filed July 12, 2016 (Doc. 90–2)("Schedules"). Schedule 3.1(c) specifies that Delta Intl. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pentair Tools Group, Inc. (DE). See Schedule 3.1(c), at 4. The Schedules, moreover, outline the intellectual property—including trademark and patent rights—that transfers with the Purchase Agreement. See Schedule 3.1(r), at 33–91. Schedule 1.1 names The Black & Decker Corp. as the "Purchaser" of the "U.S. Trademark Rights" from "All Holders of U.S. Trademark Rights," and Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. as the "Purchaser" of the "U.S. Patent Rights" from "All U.S. Holders of U.S. Patent Rights." Schedule 1.1, at 2.

Also in the Purchase Agreement, The Black & Decker Corp., as the "Buyer," makes certain "Representations and Warranties" to Pentair, Inc., the transferred subsidiaries' "Parent," including that it has " ‘Authority’ to make the ‘valid and binding agreements enforceable in accordance with their respective terms.’ " Suppl. Brief ¶ 16, at 5–6 (asserting this fact)(emphases omitted)(quoting Purchase Agreement § 3.2, at 14). See Suppl. Brief Response at 1–5 (not disputing this fact). The Purchase Agreement provides that The Black & Decker Corp. shall "indemnify" Pentair, Inc. for "all Losses ... resulting from [ ] the breach of the representations and warranties of [The Black & Decker Corp.]...." Suppl. Brief ¶ 18, at 6 (asserting this fact)(alterations added)(emphasis omitted)(quoting Purchase Agreement § 8.2, at 41). See Suppl. Brief Response at 1–5 (not disputing this fact). Pentair, Inc. also makes "Representations and Warranties" to The Black & Decker Corporation. Purchase Agreement § 3.1, at 5–13. For example, in the event of "[l]osses ... resulting from [ ] any breach of any of the representations and warranties of [Pentair, Inc.] ... or [ ] any Indemnified Liability," the Purchase Agreement provides that Pentair, Inc. shall indemnify The Black & Decker Corp. Purchase Agreement § 8.1, at 39–40 (alterations added). In its "Definitions" section, the Purchase Agreement defines "Indemnified Liabilities" to include "all liabilities ‘of the Subsidiaries’ other than ‘Transferred Liabilities.’ " Suppl. Brief Response at 3 (asserting this fact)(quoting Purchase Agreement § 11.17, at 56). See Plaintiff's Reply in Support of His Supplemental Brief in Support of His Rule...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • New Mex. Health Connections, Non-Profit Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., CIV 16-0878 JB-JHR
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 19 d5 Outubro d5 2018
    ...despite the other two factors not favoring granting the motion. 283 F.Supp.3d at 1099 & n.35. Cf. Lopez v. Delta Int'l Machinery Corp., 312 F.Supp.3d 1115, 1153-62 (D.N.M. 2018) (Browning, J.)(denying a rule 59(e) motion because the plaintiff did not show the Court erred in its judgment); U......
  • Evanston Ins. Co. v. Desert State Life Mgmt.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 16 d4 Janeiro d4 2020
    ...evidence's authenticity "gives the Court no evidence to question" the evidence's "genuineness." Lopez v. Delta Int'l Mach. Corp., 312 F. Supp. 3d 1115, 1154 (D.N.M. 2018) (Browning, J.)("Lopez"). In Lopez, the Court held that a purchase agreement was sufficiently authenticated where the def......
  • United States v. Young
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 11 d4 Fevereiro d4 2021
    ...waived the right to appeal the alleged error by not raising the appropriate argument. See Lopez v. Delta Int'l Mach. Corp., 312 F. Supp. 3d 1115, 1142 (D.N.M. 2018)(Browning, J.), aff'd sub nom, Lopez v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., 764 F. App'x 703 (10th Cir. 2019). Even in circumstances ......
  • Tanner v. McMurray
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 27 d5 Setembro d5 2019
    ...under the rule 56(c) standard. See Surreply at 6-7. Tanner cites to the Court's opinion in Lopez v. Delta Machinery Corp., 312 F. Supp. 3d 1115, 1154 (D.N.M. 2018) (Browning, J.), for the proposition that " ‘authentication is not a high threshold,’ especially when, as here, the party raisin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT