Holland Loader Company LLC v. FLSmidth A/S

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District Holland Loader Company LLC v. FLSmidth A/S

Holland Loader Company LLC v. FLSmidth A/S

Plaintiff:	Holland Loader Company LLC
Defendant:	FLSmidth A/S
Case Number:	1:2016cv06706
Filed:	August 25, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	XX Out of State
Presiding Judge:	Gregory H. Woods
Nature of Suit:	Other Contract
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
May 2, 2018	Filing 131 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: "Caveat emptor" let the buyer beware is not the right motto for this case. After all, for a modest price, the buyer in this case got everything it wanted: the devoted services of Svatek, a talented and dedic ated mining engineer, and all of the intellectual property of Holland Loader. When it decided that it was in its interest to do so, FLS fired Svatek with little warning, and then shelved the Holland Loader product line a proud American brand swallo wed up and forgotten by an international behemoth."Caveat contractor" let the contractor beware is a better fit. As the Court has found, Defendant entered into its contract without the intent to comply with its terms: astoundingly, Defen dant's counsel stated as much during his closing argument, as if that fact excused the company's non-compliance, rather than explaining it. The people at FLS responsible for administering the contract for most of its life were unaware of its requirements. Not surprisingly, they did little to meet them. FLS complied with the contract's terms only to the extent that compliance required minimal expense of its own resources. Indeed, Defendant took the position throughout this lit igation that its obligation to comply with the contract's terms was capped by what it unilaterally believed was in its business interest, despite the contracts clear language requiring that it exert reasonable efforts to achieve the contract 's goals. Confronted with this litigation, Defendant went so far as to argue that terms of the contract indisputably drafted by its own lawyer did not reflect the terms that it had agreed to. Caveat contractor was not the guiding principle f or Svatek in his dealings with FLS. Instead he trusted, and he lost. Nonetheless, the Court is constrained by the proof and is not able to award Plaintiff damages on this record. At law, this is the correct result. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant, to terminate all pending motions, and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 5/2/2018) (js) Modified on 5/3/2018 (js).

Date Filed

Document Text

May 2, 2018

Filing 131 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: "Caveat emptor" let the buyer beware is not the right motto for this case. After all, for a modest price, the buyer in this case got everything it wanted: the devoted services of Svatek, a talented and dedic ated mining engineer, and all of the intellectual property of Holland Loader. When it decided that it was in its interest to do so, FLS fired Svatek with little warning, and then shelved the Holland Loader product line a proud American brand swallo wed up and forgotten by an international behemoth."Caveat contractor" let the contractor beware is a better fit. As the Court has found, Defendant entered into its contract without the intent to comply with its terms: astoundingly, Defen dant's counsel stated as much during his closing argument, as if that fact excused the company's non-compliance, rather than explaining it. The people at FLS responsible for administering the contract for most of its life were unaware of its requirements. Not surprisingly, they did little to meet them. FLS complied with the contract's terms only to the extent that compliance required minimal expense of its own resources. Indeed, Defendant took the position throughout this lit igation that its obligation to comply with the contract's terms was capped by what it unilaterally believed was in its business interest, despite the contracts clear language requiring that it exert reasonable efforts to achieve the contract 's goals. Confronted with this litigation, Defendant went so far as to argue that terms of the contract indisputably drafted by its own lawyer did not reflect the terms that it had agreed to. Caveat contractor was not the guiding principle f or Svatek in his dealings with FLS. Instead he trusted, and he lost. Nonetheless, the Court is constrained by the proof and is not able to award Plaintiff damages on this record. At law, this is the correct result. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant, to terminate all pending motions, and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 5/2/2018) (js) Modified on 5/3/2018 (js).

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Holland Loader Company LLC v. FLSmidth A/S
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Holland Loader Company LLC
Represented By:	Michael V. Rella
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: FLSmidth A/S
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?