NO T REC OM ME ND ED F ORPU BLIC ATION Fi le Name: 07a 0531n.0 6 Fi led : Jul y

26, 2007 No. 06- 4368 UN ITED STATES C OU RT O F APPEA LS FO R THE S IXTH C IR CU IT
TW EE J ON GE G EZE LLEN , LTD ., Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lan t,
v. OW EN S- ILLIN OIS, IN C. ; OW ENS-BROCKW AY GLASS CONTAI NER, IN C. , Defend ant s-Appe llees. / On A ppe a l from the Uni ted S tates District C ourt for the North ern District of Oh io

BEF OR E: RY

AN , D AU GH TREY , and R OGER S, C ircui t J udg es. RY AN , C ircui t J udg e. South Afri c a n w i n e r y Twe e J o n g e G ez ell en, Ltd., boug ht
w ine bott les from C onsol Gl ass , butupon fill ing them w it h w ine , T wee l e a rned tha t an all eg ed flaw

i n the manufactur ing of the bottl es w as ru ini ng Tw ee’ s v int ag e. After a l eng thy inv est ig ati on, Tw ee c oncl uded t hat C onsol had improper ly us ed F re on g as to t re at t he bottl es. Tw ee sued Cons ol for damag es in a Sout h Afri can cour t and l ost

. Tw ee th en s ued defend ant s Ow ens-Illino is, Inc., an d Ow ens-Bro ckw ay Glass Conta iner, Inc. , (collectiv ely Ow ens)i n an Ohi o federa l dis trict cour t for neg li g entl y

adv is ing C onsol aboutthe use of Freon g as in Con sol ’s manufactur ing proces s. W e hol d tha t the dis tr ict cour t cor re ctl y found thi s act ion bar re d by Ohi o’s st atute of l i m i t a t i o n s a n d w e a f

f i r m t h e d i s t r i ctc o u rt ’ s g ra n to f s u m m a ryj u d g m e n tfo r O w e n s . W e(N o. 06 -4 368) -2
-

als o find that the d is tr ict c our t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on w hen i t den ied a mot ion by Tw ee to amend i ts compl ain t t o add addi ti onal pl ain ti ffs. I. Si nce 1991, Tw ee has purchas ed bottl es from Sout h Afri can g las smak er Co n sol Gl ass . In 19 97, Tw ee di sc ov ered th at t he 1994 v int ag e of i ts s p a rkling w ine fail ed to ferment p ro per ly

i n bo tt les s uppl ied by

C onsol

. Led by

i ts major ity

sh arehol der , N ic ola s Cha rl es (N ic ky ) Krone, Tw ee s tar ted a n i nv est ig ati on i nto the cause of the probl em. The i nv es ti g at i on s oo n foc us ed o n th e F reo n g as C on s ol us ed t o red uc e th e al k al i t ha t for ms on th e ins ide of g las s bottl es. U si ng F re on for thi s p ur pose is co mmon, butfrom 199 4 to 1997 Cons ol used Freon 134 a to treat t he bottl es ins tead of the more w ide ly ac cept ed Freon 152 a. In t he s ummer of 1998, Krone concl uded that Cons ol’ s improper use of F re on 134a was the c ause of Tw ee’ s p ro ble ms. Co n so l’s dec is ion to use Freon 134 a c an be traced back to the s ummer of 1993,
w hen Ow ens ch em ist Robert Clark conclud ed, fol l ow i ng a n i nter na l study, that glassma kers coul d subs ti tute Freon 134 a for the more ex pensi v e F re on 152a

. Und er a l ong -s tandi ng agreem entw ith Ow ens whereby Ow ens would provide “Tech nical Informa tion” to Con sol,
me et w ith Conso l to explain that informa tion, and consu lt and advise on the man ufactu re of g lassw are, Owens provided a cop y of the stu dy to Con sol. According to Conso l’s Laborator

y Ser v ic es Ma nag er , Cons ol researched appl y ing Freo n gas and deter mined that Freon 134 a w as a per

fect s ubst it ute for

F re on 152a , and ch eaper . Con sol beg an us ing Freon 134 a i n 1994 and app li ed i t t o the w ine bott les su ppl ied to Tw ee.(N o. 06 -4 368) -3
-

Tw ee’ s i nv est ig ati on of the caus e of it s damag ed v int ag e last ed f ro m 1997 t o 1999. Dur ing thatti me, Krone s poke w it h C onsol and Ow ens re present ati v es, from w hom he learne d tha t Ow ens reco mm end ed th at Con sol use Freon , supp lied Freon 134 a to Con sol,
ow ned 19% of Con sol’ s st o ck, and tog ether w it h C onsol , i nv est ig ated and researched Krone’ s compl ain ts about the bottl es. Krone w as tol d, alb eit er ro neous ly , that Ow ens or ig ina ll y us ed F re on 134a and had c onti nued t o us e i t for cl ose to 30 y ears. In O cto ber

1999, C onsol sued Tw ee and Krone, Tw ee’ s maj or ity sh arehol der , i n a South Afri can cour

t for failu re to p a y fo r bott les C onsol had del iv ered. Tw ee coun terclaim ed for dam ages to its 199 4 v intage alleging Consol’s m isu se of Freon gas. On F ebr uar

y 21, 2002, as par

t of di sc ov er

y in the South Afri can cas e, C onsol produce d a “bun dle” of

docu me nts, f rom w hich T w ee claims it learne d for the f irst time tha t Ow ens’s tes t us e of Freon 134 a w as cursor y at best ; t hat C onsol and Ow ens dis cus sed at len g th usi ng F re on 134a ins tead of F re on 152a; that Ow ens adv is ed C onsol to beg in usi ng F re on 134a ev en th oug h Owens it se lf u se d onl y

F re on 152a ; and thatC onsol admi tted that it s bot tling problem s w ere cau sed b y its choice of

Freo n. Af

ter a trial, the Sout h Af rican court held , w ith respe ct to T w ee’s cou nte rclaim, th at Con sol ma nufactu red the b o t t le s in accord ance w ith its stand ard proce dure s and had not brea ched a ny con tract or w arrantie s. In N ov ember

2003, the Supreme C our t of Appea l of South Afric a aff ir med. Tw o months l ater , on Janu ar y 22, 2004, Ow ens and Tw ee ent ered an ag re ement tolling any statu te of limitat ions otherwi se app licable to any action T w ee might have against Ow ens, but preser

v ing any st atute of li mita ti ons d e fe n se ex is ti ng as of the d ate o f the agreem ent

. On June 7, 200 4, Tw ee filed suit against Ow ens in fede ral d is t ri c tco urt(N o. 06 -4 368) -4
-

alleging tha t Ow ens n eglig ent ly advised Consol ab outthe suita bility o f u sing Freon g as in bot tles be ing manu factu red for Twee. More than a y ear l ate r, T w ee moved to add Nicky Krone and hi s b ro ther , Tw ee mi nor ity sh arehol der

N ic ola s C h a rle s (N .C .) Krone, as p la in t iffs, claiming tha t the v ineyard ow ned bythe bro the rs had dim inished in v alue as a result of Ow ens’s ne gli gence. Owens opp osed thi s m o tion a nd m oved for sum ma ry jud g ment. In sep arate opinio ns, th e district court de nied Twee’s mot ion an d granted Ow ens’s. Fi rs t, the c our

t reje cte d Tw ee’ s mot ion fo r le av e to amend bec ause Tw ee’ s fai lure to include the Kron es w as no t “an un dersta nda ble m istake, ” see Fed. R. Civ . P. 17 advisory commi ttee’ s n otes , and Ow ens w oul d be preju dic ed by addi ng the dimi nuti on of l and v alu e cl aim to t he neg li g ence sui t. The c our t al so found that amendi ng the compl ain t woul d be f utile be cause any diminut ion of land value claim was time ba rred. Seco nd , t h e cou rt g ra nted summar

y j udg ment for Ow ens becau se the s tatut e of li mita ti ons had r un on T wee ’s n e glige n ce cla im . T h e co u rtfo u n d th a t b y 19 9 8 Nick y Kro n e ha d en o u gh infor mati on abou t O w ens’ s role i n the defecti v e bottl e probl e m that any ca use of acti on ag ain st Ow ens had ac cr ued, and that the tw o- y ear st atute of li mita ti ons per iod had beg un to r un. Tw ee now

appeal s b oth d eci si ons. II. W e rev iew

a s ummaryjudg ment dec is ion de n ov o, us ing the same s tandards appl ied by

the d istri ct cour

t. Thomas v . C ohen, 453 F .3d 6 57, 6 60 ( 6th C ir . 200 6)

. For cases where su m m a ry ju d gmen t is sought on sta tute of limitation s g roun ds, th is court “mus t det er mine w hether ( 1) the sta tute of l imi tati ons has ru n and (2 ) w hether there ex is ts(N o. 06 -4 368) -5
-

a g enui ne issue of mater ial fact a s t o w hen t he pl ain ti ff ’s ca use of acti on ac cr ued.” Campbe ll v . G ra nd Tr unk W . R .R . C o., 238 F .3d 772, 775 (6 th Ci r. 2001) ; s ee al so Fed. R. C iv . P. 56( c)

. If the de fendant c ar ri es th e b u rd e n o f show ing thatthe sta tute of li mita ti ons has ru n, t hen t he pl ain ti ff has the burden of es tablish in g an ex cept ion to the sta tute of li mita ti ons, su ch as a tol li ng of the s tatut e, l ate dis cov er y of t he inj ur

y , or the l ik e. Ca m p b e ll , 2 38 F.3 d at 77 5 (citing Draz an v. United Sta tes, 7 62 F.2 d 56 , 60 (7th Cir

. 1985) ). I n det er mini ng w hether any g enui ne i ss ues of mat er ial fact ex is t abo ut ac cr ual of
a c ause of acti on, “ ‘we mustv iew the factual ev ide nce and draw all reason abl e i nferenc es in fav or of the n on- mov ing par ty .’ ” Thomas, 453 F .3d a t 660 ( ci tati on omi tted)

.

III . The par ti es ag re e that under Ohi o law , Tw ee’ s neg li g ence cl aim is su bje ct to a twoy ear sta tute of l imi tati ons ru nni ng from “w hen the inj ur y or los s to per so n or p ro p erty occur[red ],” thatis, w hen Twee’s cla im accrue d. O hio Rev. Code § 230 5.1 0(A). Th ey also ag re e tha t O hio ’s di sc ov er y r ule appl ies to Tw ee’ s cl aim and t hat t he two- y ear l imi tati ons p e ri o d d id n o t b e gi n t o ru n u n t il T we e d is c o ve re d o r sh o u ld h a ve d is c o ve re d : (1 ) i t s in ju ry; and (2) that its in jury

was th e result of

Ow ens’s w rongf ul cond uct. Se e Norgard v . Brush W ell man, I nc. , 766 N .E.2 d 977, 979 (O hio 2002). Sinc e T w ee and Ow ens ag re ed that t he statu te of

limitation s period would be to lled on Janu ary22, 20 04, the key issue is w het her, under Ohio ’s d is cov er

y r ule , Tw ee’ s c ause of acti on ac cr ued and the li mita ti ons per iod beg an to r un before J anuar y 22, 2002. Because it did, Tw ee’ s caus e of acti on is bar re d. As to t he first prong of Ohi o’s di sc ov er y r ule , i t app ears t hat Tw ee l ear ned of i ts inj ur y i n 1997 w hen i ts w ine in Conso l’ s bottl es failed to ferment p ro per ly , and so our focus(N o. 06 -4 368) -6
-

shi fts to the s econd prong of the r ule , the ti me at w hic h Tw ee had suffici ent i nformati on to conclu de th at a cau se of its injury is the “wrongf ul cond uct of the de fend ant .” See id. It is at th at po i nt th at th e s ta tu te of l i mi ta ti on s be g i ns to r un . U s i ng th i s g ui da nc e, one Ohio
cour t hel d tha t w here a p la in ti f f k new thatthe foundatio n of her si x -y ear-o ld house had been da mag ed, “ itsh oul d hav e been apparent to anyreason abl e person that the b uil der

. . . and anyone respon si ble for i nspecti ng the bui lde r’ s wor k .

. . were respon si ble for t he dam age.” Fifth Th ird Bank v. C ope , 835 N.E.2d 779 , 791 (Oh io Ct. App . 200 5). Th e cou rt thereby found thatthe li mita ti ons per iod beg an to r un atthe dis cov er y of her i nju ry . Id. By the summer

of 1998, Ni cky

Krone c oncl uded t hat C onsol ’s mis use of Freon 134 a proba b ly ca used Tw ee’ s w ine fermenta ti on probl ems. By 1999, he l ear ned t hat O w ens reco m m end ed th at Con sol use Freon , provided Freon 134 a to Con sol, ha d a bu siness
re lat ion shi p w it h Conso l, and, toget her w it h Conso l, had re searched his co mplai nts about the b ottl es. Ba sed on th ese facts, Krone, and t h e re fo re Tw ee, h ad enou g h i nformati on re asona bly

to sus pectthat Ow ens’ s w ro ng ful conductw as a c ause of Tw ee’ s i nju ry . The di s tr i ct c ou rt c on c l ud ed t ha t th e s ta tu te o f l i mi ta ti on s s ta rte d to r un i n 19 98 , bu t ev en i f it did not beg in to ru n then, itce rt ain ly beg an to r un by

1999, and so, at the l ates t, itex pired in 2001. Tw ee’ s ag re ement to tol l the li mita ti ons per iod i n 2004 falls outs ide thi s p er iod , w hic h means thatTw ee’ s n eg li g ence cl aim is ti me-ba rred. Tw ee p ro te st s that itfirst lea rn ed of Ow ens’ s w ro ng ful c onduct i n F ebr uar y 2002
w hen i t re cei v ed a “b undl e” of do cument s in dis cov er y . C it ing N org ard, Tw ee arg ues that
w it hout the k now led g e i t g ain ed from t his “ bundl e” of documents, the sta tute of li mita ti ons per iod di d notbe gin to ru n bec ause unti l that ti me Tw ee c oul d notkn ow of any w ro ng ful(N o. 06 -4 368) -7
-

condu ct by

Owens. Bu t u n d e r Norg ard, t he di sc ov er y r ule tol ls the sta tute of li mita ti ons onl y unti l a pl ain ti ff

has an “ ind ic ati on of w ro ng ful condu ct of t he defendant.” 766 N .E.2 d at 97 9 ( emphasi s a dded)

. H ere, Tw ee k new of it s i nju ry , k new

thatF re on 134a ca used the inj ur y , and kn ew

that Owens had s ig nific ant i nfluence i n C o n sol ’s dec is ion to use Freon 134a, w ell before the “bun dle ” of document s w as pro duced

. W hil e Tw ee di d notkn ow the
ex actnatu re of Ow ens’ s w ro ng doi ng , i t knew “o f an inj ur y and the caus e of the inj ur y ,” and could have used th e ne xt tw o y ears un der the limitation s period to inv estigate O w ens’s involv ement. See id. at 981. T w ee a lso argues tha t (1) the question of w hen it had const ructiv e not ice of Ow ens’s
ro le is a q uest ion of fact for a jur y , and (2 ) Ow ens shoul d be est opped from ass erti ng a statu te of

limitation s d e fe n s e b ecau se it misrepre sent ed facts. W e f ind bo th th ese argume nts unp ersua siv e. W hile the q uest ion of w het her a pla intif

f had construct iv e no tice is ge n e ra lly an iss u e of fa ctto b e d e t e r m i n e d by a ju ry, whe n a co u rtis co n sid e rin g a summar y j udg ment moti on, itm ay dete rmi ne w hen a pla int iff had noti ce, prov idi ng “ the
mov ant c an s how

thatno i ss ues of materi al fact ex is t.” C h a rash v . O ber li n C oll eg e, 14 F. 3d 291, 300 (6 th Ci r. 1994)

. That i s p re ci sel y the cas e here: w e hav e notreli ed on any dis puted mater ial fact s in rea chi ng our deci si on that Tw ee had an “i ndi cat ion of w ro ng ful condu ct [by

Owens] ” as ear ly

as 1999. Se e N org ard, 76 6 N .E.2 d at 979. Nev erthel ess , Ow ens w oul d be est opped from ass erti ng a sta tute of li mita ti ons defense i f Twe e c a n s h o w : ( 1 ) a fa ct u a l mi s re p re s e n t a t i o n b y O w e n s ; ( 2 ) t hat t he misrep resen tatio n is mislead ing; (3) tha t the misrep resen tatio n indu ced a ctua l reasona ble
re l i a n c e t a k e n i n g o o d fa i t h ; a n d ( 4 ) t h a tt h i s re l i a n c e w a s d e tr iment al to t h e p l a i n t i ff.(N o. 06 -4 368) -8
-

Hoe p p n e r v. Jes s H ow ard El ec. C o., 780 N .E.2 d 290, 297 (O hio C t. App. 2002)

. The mis re present ati on al so must hav e been “‘ cal cul ated to i nduce a pla int iff to forg o the r ig ht to sue .’” Id. (citatio n om itted ). W hile T w ee h as sho w n a factu al misrep resen tatio n tha t is mis lea din g , i n tha t one Owens sc ien ti st inc or re ctl y or fals ely tol d N ic ky

Krone that O w ens or ig ina ll y us ed F re on 134a and cont inu ed to us e i t fo r close to 30 y ears, Tw ee has not show n tha t it act ual ly re asona bly re li ed upon thi s sta tement in it s d eci si on to del ay br ing ing sui t. W e think

the dis tr ict cour

t’ s rej ect ion of the e q uit abl e es toppel arg ument was cor re ct.

IV. The other

i ss ue before us i s t he di str ict c our t’ s d eni al of Tw ee’ s mot ion for l eav e to amend i ts compl ain t t o add the Kro ne broth ers as plai nti ffs. The di str ict c our t reje cte d tha t
re q ueston t hree g ro unds: ( 1) the amendment was undul y l ate and the plain ti ff ’s fail ure to in c lu d e t h e K ro n e s a s p la in t if fs wa s n o t“a n u n d e rs t a n d a b le m is t a k e ” u n d e r F e d

. R. Ci v. P. 15 and 17; (2)the defendants w oul d s uffer preju dic e by

the addi ti onal pl ain ti ffs a ddi ng a dim inutio n of

land value claim to the ea rlier- plea ded neglig ence suit; and , in all ev ent s, (3 ) t h e d im in u t io n o f

la n d va lu e cl a im wa s t i m e - b a r r e d

. T h is co u rtre vie ws t h e f irs ttwo groun ds for an ab use o f discretion a nd th e third g roun d de novo. See Lea ry v . Daesch ner, 349 F .3d 8 88, 9 04 ( 6th C ir . 200 3)

. W e agre e wit h eac h of the dis tr ict c our t’ s s tated
re asons for d eny ing the moti on to amend. V. The di str ict c our

t’ s g ra nt of s ummary

j udg ment for the d efendants and den ial of the pla int iff’s mot ion for l eav e to amend are A FF IR ME D

.