Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 944, 565 N.E.2d 215, 218-19 (1990). As the Court already has discussed, none of Cottrell’s diverse co-Defendants in this case have been fraudulently joined to defeat diversity. To the extent there is any question about the citizenship of the Allen Cassens Trust, the Albert Cassens Trust, Albert Cassens, Mark Shashek, Marysville Releasing, Inc., Bankhead Transportation Equipment Company, and Bankhead Enterprises, Inc., for diversity purposes, it would have been apparent to Cottrell upon service of the Younts’ operative complaint that those Defendants were due to be dismissed from the case under the “seller’s exception” to 735 ILCS 5/2-621, at least with respect to the Younts’ products liability claims. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Usinor Industeel, 393 F.Supp.2d 659, 684-85 (N.D.Ill.2005) (<HOLDING>); Link v. Venture Stores, Inc., 286 Ill.App.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that section 2621 does not apply to claims for breach of warranty (B) holding that warranty claim accrued at tender where 180 day warranty on computer not a warranty for future performance as it involved a remedy only (C) holding that fifra preempts breach of warranty claims based on labeling (D) holding that passenger cannot maintain action for breach of implied warranty to provide safe passage (E) holding plaintiff had to commence his breach of implied warranty action under the dtpa within two years because tjhis special statute of limitations denies plaintiffs alternative proposal of entitlement to recover for breach of the common law implied warranty
Output (English): holding that warranty claim accrued at tender where 180 day warranty on computer not a warranty for future performance as it involved a remedy only