Salt Lake City Corp. v. Sekisui SPR Ams., LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01095-JNP-BCW
| Decision Date | 26 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:17-cv-01095-JNP-BCW |
| Citation | 412 F.Supp.3d 1316 |
| Parties | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION; Plaintiff; v. SEKISUI SPR AMERICAS, LLC; Sekisui Rib Loc Australia Pty Ltd. ; Southwest Pipeline and Trenchless Corp.; Safeco Insurance Company of America, Inc. ; HydraTech Engineered Products, LLC ; and Does 1–10; Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
E. Russell Vetter, Catherine L. Brabson, Salt Lake City Attorneys Office, Brian D. Bolinder, Craig C. Coburn, Jack W. Reed, Lincoln Harris, Samantha E. Wilcox, Richards Brandt Miller Nelson, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiffs.
Kamie F. Brown, Matthew M. Cannon, Ray Quinney & Nebeker, Brian J. Babcock, Robert F. Babcock, Babcock Scott & Babcock, S. Spencer Brown, Stanford P. Fitts, Strong & Hanni, Gary T. Wight, Shawn McGarry, Jeremy R. Speckhals, Kipp & Christian, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants.
Salt Lake City Corporation hired Southwest Pipeline and Trenchless Corporation (Southwest) to rehabilitate a sewer line. Southwest used components supplied by Sekisui Rib Loc Australia Pty Ltd. (Sekisui Australia), Sekisui SPR Americas, LLC (Sekisui Americas), and HydraTech Engineered Products, LLC (HydraTech) to complete the project. Salt Lake City subsequently sued Southwest, Sekisui Australia, Sekisui Americas, and HydraTech, alleging that the rehabilitated sewer line was leaking. Southwest filed crossclaims against Sekisui Australia, Sekisui Americas, and HydraTech for breach of contract, apportionment of fault, and indemnification.
Before the court are motions to dismiss Salt Lake City's amended complaint filed by Sekisui Australia, Sekisui Americas, and HydraTech, [Docket 79, 80, 84], and a motion to dismiss Southwest's amended crosscomplaint filed by Sekisui Australia and Sekisui Americas, [Docket 105]. Salt Lake City and Southwest also filed motions to certify statute of limitations questions to the Utah Supreme Court. [Docket 93, 121].
The court GRANTS Sekisui Australia's, Sekisui Americas', and HydraTech's motions to dismiss Salt Lake City's causes of action against them. The court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Sekisui Australia's and Sekisui Americas' motion to dismiss Southwest's crossclaims against them. Finally, the court DENIES Salt Lake City's and Southwest's motion to certify questions to the Utah Supreme Court.
Salt Lake City requested bids to rehabilitate a sewer line by installing a liner within the existing pipe. This "trenchless" method of rehabilitating the sewer line avoids the need to dig up and replace the pipe. Southwest won the bid. Sekisui Australia and Sekisui Americas sold their proprietary liner product to Southwest for use in the project. HydraTech supplied joints that were used to connect and seal the sections of pipe liner used in the project.
Sometime in late 2012, Southwest finished the sewer line rehabilitation project and Salt Lake City began to use the rehabilitated line to transport sewage to a treatment plant. On December 17, 2012, the city sent a letter to Southwest. The letter stated that on November 29, 2012, Salt Lake City had tested the rehabilitated section of sewer line and had discovered "a significant defect and leak in the liner." The letter stated that the defect was "allowing 1.0 to 1.5 million gallons per day ... groundwater infiltration with extremely high total dissolved solids ... into the pipeline." The letter demanded that Southwest "correct the defective work" by February 28, 2013. Over the next two and a half years, Southwest and the city formulated a number of plans to fix the leaks and Southwest made one unsuccessful attempt to repair the sewer line. On June 22, 2015, Southwest declined to make any further plans to repair the sewer line.
On May 10, 2017, Salt Lake City sued Sekisui Australia and Sekisui Americas. On November 8, 2017, the city amended its complaint to add claims against Southwest and HydraTech. This amended complaint asserted claims for (1) breach of warranty, (2) products liability, (3) negligence, and (4) negligent failure to warn against Sekisui Australia, Sekisui Americas, and HydraTech. Meanwhile, Southwest sued Sekisui Australia and Sekisui Americas on October 2, 2017. That lawsuit was consolidated with crossclaims that Southwest had asserted in this lawsuit. The crossclaims asserted by Southwest included claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and indemnification against Sekisui Australia and Sekisui Americas and an apportionment of fault claim against Sekisui Australia, Sekisui Americas, and HydraTech.
The court dismissed all of Salt Lake City's claims against Sekisui Australia, Sekisui Americas, and HydraTech on statute of limitations grounds. The court granted the city leave to amend its complaint to plead "the time and manner of its discovery of its causes of action against the[se] defendants, as well as facts showing an inability to discover the causes of action sooner through the exercise of reasonable diligence." The court also dismissed Southwest's crossclaim for breach of contract against Sekisui Australia and Sekisui Americas on statute of limitations grounds and dismissed the breach of warranty crossclaim against these two defendants because Southwest failed to adequately plead this claim. The court granted Southwest leave to amend its crosscomplaint to remedy these defects if it could.
Salt Lake City filed a second amended complaint, pleading additional facts related to its assertion that the statute of limitations on the claims against Sekisui Australia, Sekisui Americas, and HydraTech had been tolled by the discovery rule. Southwest also filed an amended crosscomplaint. Southwest abandoned its breach of warranty crossclaim, but pleaded additional facts related to its breach of contract crossclaim against Sekisui Australia and Sekisui Americas. Southwest also added a new crossclaim against HydraTech for breach of contract.
Sekisui Australia, Sekisui Americas, and HydraTech moved to dismiss the claims asserted against them in Salt Lake City's Second Amended Complaint. Sekisui Australia and Sekisui Americas also filed a motion to dismiss the claims asserted against them in Southwest's amended crosscomplaint. Finally, Salt Lake City and Southwest filed motions to certify to the Utah Supreme Court questions about the proper statute of limitations to apply to the claims in this case.
Sekisui Australia renewed its argument that this court lacks personal jurisdiction to hear Salt Lake City's claims against it. But it did not assert new jurisdictional facts or provide new arguments. Instead, Sekisui Australia "incorporate[d] by reference the personal jurisdiction arguments made in its Motion to Dismiss filed on December 8, 2017." The court, therefore, adopts the analysis of this issue set forth in its September 28, 2018 Order. The court concludes that it has specific personal jurisdiction over Sekisui Australia and denies the motion to dismiss the claims against it.
Sekisui Australia, Sekisui Americas, and HydraTech (collectively, the defendants) argue that all of the causes of action asserted against them should be dismissed because the allegations of the complaint establish that these claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. In order to determine whether the defendants' statute of limitations arguments have merit, the court must answer three questions: (1) What are the applicable limitation periods for each cause of action? (2) When did each limitations period begin to run? and (3) Do the allegations of the complaint indicate that any of the statutes of limitations may have been tolled by the discovery rule? The court addresses each of these questions in turn.
The court explained in its September 28, 2018 Order that it must look first to Utah Code section 78B-2-225, which provides limitations periods for actions arising out of improvements to real property (improvements to real property statute). The parties concede that this statute applies to Salt Lake City's claims and that it is the starting point for the statute of limitations analysis.
The improvements to real property statute provides:
UTAH CODE § 78B-2-225(3) – (4). Subsections (3)(b) and (4) set the applicable statute of limitations and statute of repose for all the non-warranty claims brought against the defendants—i.e., products liability, negligence, and negligent failure to warn. Indeed, Salt Lake City...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skinner v. Ethicon, Inc.
...they are "charged with knowledge of any facts that a reasonable investigation would have uncovered." Salt Lake City Corp. v. Sekisui, 412 F. Supp. 3d 1316, (D. Utah Sept. 26, 2019). Applying this standard, the court finds that no reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiffs did not discov......