Colonial Press v. Cothran Printing, No. 05-2943 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - diversity. District court's grant of summary judgment holding suit barred by statute of limitations is summarily affirmed.
Download PDF
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 * Defendants-Appellees, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Komori Corporation, a corporation; * Komori America Corporation, * * Defendants.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. 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. ______________________________ 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-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
