Court Opinion

ID: 9352369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-05 21:00:45.985513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:01:40.274961
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1978      Doc: 35         Filed: 01/04/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-1978

        BIOIBERICA NEBRASKA, INC.,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        NUTRAMAX MANUFACTURING, INC.,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:18-cv-03133-SAG)

        Argued: December 6, 2022                                          Decided: January 4, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ARGUED: Lawrence J. Gebhardt, GEBHARDT & SMITH, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland,
        for Appellant. Jeffrey Stuart Patterson, K&L GATES, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for
        Appellee. ON BRIEF: Gregory L. Arbogast, Robert T. Nanovsky, GEBHARDT &
        SMITH LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Christopher S. Finnerty, Jennifer
        Janeira Nagle, Boston, Massachusetts, Meghan E. Flinn, K&L GATES LLP, Washington,
        D.C., for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1978      Doc: 35          Filed: 01/04/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               This case involves a “battle of the forms” under the Uniform Commercial Code, as

        adopted in Maryland.

               On August 14, 2017, Nutramax Manufacturing, Inc., a Maryland corporation, issued

        a purchase order to Bioiberica, S.A.U., a Spanish corporation located in Barcelona, Spain,

        for 18,000 kilograms of sodium chondroitin sulfate (a product used in the manufacture of

        drugs to treat osteoarthritis), to be delivered to Nutramax in three separate shipments of

        6,000 kilograms each. Following receipt of the purchase order, Bioiberica shipped the first

        installment, which Nutramax received and accepted. Both Bioiberica and Bioiberia’s

        subsidiary, Bioiberica Nebraska, Inc., a Nebraska corporation, apparently submitted an

        invoice for payment of the first shipment, which Nutramax paid. The two later shipments

        were interrupted by Spanish customs issues, and Bioiberica directed Bioiberica Nebraska

        to fill the remainder of the order from its inventory. After receiving the next two shipments,

        Nutramax delayed payment, prompting Bioiberica Nebraska to commence this action for

        payment. Nutramax thereafter paid for the two shipments, but Bioiberica Nebraska

        nonetheless continued this action to recover interest and collection costs, including

        attorneys fees, as provided by the terms of its invoice. Interest and collection costs were

        not, however, provided for in Nutramax’s original purchase order, nor in Bioiberica’s

        invoice. In a motion to dismiss, Nutramax argued that its purchase order controlled the

        terms of the transaction as Bioiberica shipped product in response to the purchase order

        without taking any exception to its terms. See Md. Code, Com. Law §§ 2–206, 2–207.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1978      Doc: 35         Filed: 01/04/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

               In its third-amended complaint, Bioiberica Nebraska alleged that it — as distinct

        from Bioiberica — was entitled to sue Nutramax because there had been a novation in

        which it and Nutramax became the operative parties to the transaction or, alternatively, that

        Bioiberica assigned its contract to Bioiberica Nebraska, giving Bioiberica Nebraska the

        right to sue for interest and attorneys fees, as provided by the terms of its invoices for

        payment of the material. Bioiberica Nebraska alleged that Nutramax, by agreeing to

        receive material from Bioiberica Nebraska and by paying Bioiberica Nebraska for the

        shipments, agreed to a novation or assignment. Nutramax denied agreeing to any novation

        or assignment, arguing that its contract was with Bioiberica in Spain and that the contract

        prohibited assignment. Also, no term of that contract provided for interest and collection

        costs — no such provision was contained in either Nutramax’s purchase order or in

        Bioiberica’s invoice.

               Bioiberica Nebraska also attempted to file a fourth-amended complaint based on its

        recent discovery of Bioiberica Nebraska’s first invoice. It claimed that in light of the

        discovered invoice, its theories of novation or assignment were no longer needed. The

        district court denied leave to file the fourth-amended complaint, concluding, among other

        things, that the new invoice would not, in any event, advance Bioiberica Nebraska’s cause.

               Addressing the third-amended complaint on the parties’ cross-motions for summary

        judgment, the district court granted judgment to Nutramax, concluding that the facts

        necessary for a novation, or indeed an assignment, both of which would require Nutramax’s

        consent, had not been sufficiently alleged.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1978      Doc: 35         Filed: 01/04/2023       Pg: 4 of 4

               Having carefully reviewed the record and received the arguments of counsel, we

        affirm, substantially for the reasons given by the district court in its various orders

        addressing the issues on Nutramax’s multiple motions to dismiss Bioiberica Nebraska’s

        various complaints and the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.

               Bioiberica Nebraska also challenged the district court’s order sanctioning it for

        filing a motion to file a fourth-amended complaint (the fifth complaint in the case) on the

        ground that Bioiberica Nebraska’s counsel acted in bad faith by repeatedly ignoring the

        district court’s directions and admonitions during the course of the proceedings. The court

        awarded Nutramax $4,727.50 to cover its expenses in responding to the motion to file the

        fourth-amended complaint.

               Again, based on our review of the relevant record, we conclude that the district court

        did not commit any error of law, nor did it abuse its discretion. We thus also affirm the

        court’s ruling on sanctions.

               The judgment of the district court is accordingly

                                                                                       AFFIRMED.

                                                     4