Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00412/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00412-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1- 

Walsworth,

Franklin, 

Bevins & 

McCall, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VISION TECHNOLOGY DESIGN & 

MANUFACTURING, INC. 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

GENERAL WIRE SPRING COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. CV-F-07-412 OWW/WMW 

ORDER OF THE COURT GRANTING 

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

DEFENDANT GENERAL WIRE 

SPRING COMPANY'S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

The Court, having reviewed (i) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ii) Plaintiff’s Brief in 

Opposition, and (iii) Defendant’s Reply thereto, and having also heard oral argument from the 

parties’ respective counsel on July 9, 2007, authored a Memorandum of Decision, dated July 13, 

2007, and served the same, electronically, on all parties on July 17, 2007. This Order of Court 

follows, adjudging and decreeing as set forth below: 

1. Defendant’s 12(b)(3) Motion to Dismiss or Transfer for improper venue is 

DENIED. Although Defendant’s purchase order forum selection clause identifies the Western 

District of Pennsylvania or the state courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as the agreed 

upon forum for litigation arising from these purchase orders, the Court, in taking the Complaint’s 

allegations as true for purposes of this motion, finds that not all of Plaintiff’s claims are based on 

breach of the purchase orders, including Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief as to an alleged 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00412-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 08/01/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2- 

Walsworth,

Franklin, 

Bevins & 

McCall, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

intellectual property dispute. 

2. Defendant’s 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s first cause of action (breach of 

exclusive requirements contract) on the basis of failure to allege breach of exclusive requirements 

contract is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The factual basis for the alleged 

contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant is unclear, making it difficult to ascertain 

the nature of any contractual relationship between the parties. Without a clarifying amendment, it 

cannot be determined whether Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted against 

Defendant. Within ten (10) days of the filing of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a First Amended 

Complaint with facts specific as to the alleged contractual relationship between Plaintiff and 

Defendant. 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s first cause of action (breach of exclusive 

requirements contract) based on the affirmative defense of the statute of frauds is DENIED on the 

grounds that 13 Pa.C.S.A. § 2201(c)(1) provides an exception to the statute of frauds in a contract 

for specially manufactured goods. 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s first cause of action (breach of exclusive 

requirements contract) based on the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations is DENIED

because the alleged breaches of the 2002 agreement occurred in mid-2006, and the present action 

was commenced on March 14, 2007. 

3. Defendant’s 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s second cause of action (breach 

of purchase orders), fourth cause of action (unjust enrichment), and fifth cause of action (goods 

sold and delivered) is DENIED on the basis that it is not presently clear that the purchase order 

termination provision applies to the entire contract alleged by Plaintiff to preclude these claims for 

relief. Since Defendant’s position that it could have terminated its contract with Plaintiff for cause 

is not based solely on the plain meaning of the termination provision, to clarify this issue would 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00412-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3- 

Walsworth,

Franklin, 

Bevins & 

McCall, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

require the Court to consider “matters outside the pleading,” which is not possible without treating 

the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, which the Court does not find to be 

appropriate at the present time. 

4. Defendant’s 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s third cause of action (promissory 

estoppel) on the ground that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege facts to sustain a cause of action 

for promissory estoppel is DENIED in light of the allegations contained in paragraphs 42-47. 

5. Defendant’s 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action (declaratory 

relief) is DENIED on the basis that the Eastern District of California is not bound by the decision 

of another United States District Court and Defendant’s cease and desist letter. An actual case or 

controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendant regarding the alleged infringement of 

intellectual property rights for purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the cause of action is 

not premature. 

6. Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s demand for consequential damages is 

GRANTED to the extent that the First Cause of Action prays for consequential damages under the 

causes of action based solely on the purchase orders. If the evidence establishes a broader contract, 

not limited to the purchase orders, it is possible that the general measure of foreseeable contract 

damages will apply and, to that extent, the Motion to Strike is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

THE HONORABLE OLIVER W. WANGER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00412-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 08/01/07 Page 3 of 3