Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02943/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02943-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2943

___________

The Colonial Press, Inc, *

*

 Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Cothran Printing Equipment, Inc.; * Appeal From the United States

Cothran's Graphic Arts Equipment * District Court for the

Company, * District of Nebraska.

*

Defendants-Appellees, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Komori Corporation, a corporation; *

Komori America Corporation, *

*

 Defendants. *

___________

Submitted: January 13, 2006

Filed: April 14, 2006

___________

Before BYE, HEANEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-2943 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2006 Entry ID: 2032915
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

2

Neb. Rev. Stat. U.C.C. § 2-725(1). Although the purchase agreement included

a choice of law provision naming Colorado law as controlling, the district court

correctly applied the more generous statute of limitations provided by Nebraska law.

3

Neb. Rev. Stat. U.C.C. § 2-725(2).

-2-

The Colonial Press, Inc. (Colonial) appeals the district court’s1

 grant of

summary judgment to Cothran Printing Equipment, Inc., et al. (Cothran), in Colonial’s

diversity suit, alleging breach of express and implied warranties based on mechanical

problems with a printing press it purchased from Cothran. The district court held that

Colonial’s claims were barred by the four-year2

 statute of limitations, because the

printing press was delivered on or about July 10, 1999 and Colonial did not file its

complaint until July 8, 2004. The district court also rejected Colonial’s “future

performance” exception3

 argument, holding that, although the exception applied,

Colonial’s complaint conclusively demonstrated that it “discovered” the alleged

breach “[a]lmost immediately following installation of the Press.” (Appellees’ App.

at 21.) Therefore, the district court concluded, even with the exception, the limitations

period began to run “almost immediately following the installation of the Press” on

July 10, 1999, and the four-year period expired prior to July 8, 2004–the date that

Colonial filed its complaint. (Id.)

After careful consideration of Colonial’s arguments and upon de novo review,

Grand Island Express v. Timpte Indus., Inc., 28 F.3d 73, 74 (8th Cir. 1994), we affirm

on the basis of district court’s well-reasoned memorandum and order, see 8th Cir. R.

47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2943 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2006 Entry ID: 2032915