Mitsubishi Chemical Composites America, Inc. v. PPG Industries, Inc., No. 2:2019cv00216 - Document 31 (E.D. Va. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER: The Court OVERRULES the Plaintiff's Objection to the R&R. The Court ADOPTS AND APPROVES IN FULL the findings and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned R&R. The Defendant's Motion to Dismi ss is GRANTED as to Counts II and VI, which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Counts IV and V, which are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Count III; and the Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to amend, within 20 days of the entry of this Order, with respect to Counts IV and V. Signed by District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith on 01/03/2020. (bboy, )

Download PDF

Mitsubishi Chemical Composites America, Inc. v. PPG Industries, Inc. Doc. 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL COMPOSITES AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19cv216 V. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. ORDER This matter comes before the court on the Defendant's Motion for Partial Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (''Motion to Dismiss"), EOF No. 10, and corresponding Memorandum of Law in Support, ECF No. 11, filed on June 7, 2019. The Plaintiff filed an Opposition on July 22, 2019, ECF No. 19, and the Defendant filed a Reply on July 29, 2019, ECF No. 24. On August 2, 2019, the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, if necessary, proposed for the and to findings submit to the undersigned of fact, if applicable, disposition of the Motion to and district judge recommendations Dismiss. ECF No. 25. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") was filed on November 20, 2019. ECF No. 28. The R&R recommended that the Dockets.Justia.com Motion to Dismiss be granted as to Counts II and VI and that those Counts Counts IV be and dismissed V and with that prejudice; those Counts be be granted dismissed as to without prejudice; be denied as to Count III; and that the Plaintiff be granted leave to amend with respect to Counts IV and V. Id. In the R&R, the parties were advised of their right to file written objections to the findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge within fourteen (14) days from the date of the mailing of the R&R to the objecting party. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the at 15-16. The R&R on December 4, 2019, objecting only to the R&R's recommendation that the court grant the Motion to Dismiss with respect to Count II and dismiss Count II with prejudice. ECF No. 29. The Defendant filed a Response on December 18, 2019. ECF No. 30. Pursuant Procedure, to the Rule 72(b) court, of having the Federal reviewed the Rules record of in Civil its entirety, shall make a ^ novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which the Plaintiff has specifically objected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to him with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having reviewed the record and made a ^ novo determination with respect to the portions of the R&R to which the Plaintiff has objected, the court OVERRULES the Plaintiff's Objection to the R&R. Specifically, the court finds that the disclaimer of implied warranties at paragraph 9 of the Master Warranty Agreement, which was attached as Exhibit A to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, EOF No. 11-1,^ was conspicuous under Pennsylvania law, and that the Plaintiff s claim in Count II of the Complaint therefore fails as a matter of law. The court ADOPTS AND APPROVES IN FULL the findings and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned R&R. ECF No. 28. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED as to Counts II and VI, which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Counts IV and V, which are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Count III; and the Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to amend, within twenty (20) days of the entry of this Order, with respect to Counts IV and V. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to counsel for all parties. ^ Although the Master Warranty Agreement was not attached to the Complaint in its entirety, it did form the basis of numerous Counts in the Complaint and was quoted in part in the Complaint. See, e.g., ECF No. 1 at 15, 34, 36, 49. Therefore, the court may consider the full text of the Master Warranty Agreement ^^in determining whether to dismiss the complaint because it was integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint and because the plaintiff[] do[es] not challenge its authenticity." Phillips V. LCI Int'l, Inc., 190 F.3d 609, 618 (4th Cir. 1999). IT IS SO ORDERED. KcDeoca Beach Smith "" OCRl ScoicyUnited StatesDlstiicti.Hi|^^ REBECCA BEACH SMITH SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE January , 2020 3,

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.