Opinion ID: 2996111
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Central and AUL’s claims.

Text: In response to Nabisco’s fourth amended complaint, Central filed suit against Krusinski, Brandonisio, Artlow, and Blocker for breach of warranty. Central maintains that Catellus assigned its rights to enforce any warranties arising out of the construction contracts to Central. AUL, Central’s affiliate, also filed a third-party complaint against Catellus. Relying on prior negotiations and the tenant lease between Central and Catellus, AUL alleged that it was a direct third-party beneficiary of the tenant lease and had the same rights as Central under the lease. Additionally, AUL brought claims against Krusinski, Brandonisio, Artlow, and Blocker, asserting that it had a right to recover damages as Nabisco’s bailee. The defendants sued by AUL and Central moved to dismiss those claims, asserting various defenses, including lack of standing. Judge Bucklo granted the defendants’ mo- tions to dismiss the complaints of AUL and Central and denied AUL leave to amend. AUL and Central jointly filed a motion seeking clarification of the judgment. In response to this motion for clarification, the district court reinstated Central’s claim against Blocker, the excavation contractor, and issued its 1 Nabisco’s other claims remain before the district court. Seeking resolution of the same matters as AUL and Central, Nabisco sought and received a Rule 54(b) judgment on its dismissed claims shortly after AUL’s and Central’s claims were dismissed. 6 Nos. 01-1711 & 01-2310 final judgment against AUL and Central with respect to all claims except Blocker’s. Nabisco, AUL, and Central timely appealed.