Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Chem. Solvents, Inc. v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio

April 6, 2011, Decided; April 6, 2011, Filed

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-01902

Opinion

OPINION & ORDER

[Resolving Doc. No. 22, 31, 36

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

In this contract dispute, Defendant Advantage Engineering, Inc., ("Advantage") moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for summary judgment. [Doc. 22.] Plaintiff Chemical Solvents, Inc., ("Chemical Solvents") opposes the motion. [Doc. 29.] The Defendant replied. [Doc. 33.] Defendant Advantage also moves to exclude the expert testimony of Jim Gilligan under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which was offered by the Plaintiff in support of their opposition to summary judgment. [Doc. 31.] The motion is opposed. [Doc. 35.] 1

I. Background

This case stems from Plaintiff Chemical Solvent's purchase of a Titan  [*2] Central Chiller Model TI-180A, which was manufactured and sold by Defendant Advantage. The Plaintiff is a supplier of chemical products and provides waste disposal and recycling services to industry. [Doc. 29 at 5.] In 2007, upon the recommendation of Tony Datillo, an independent consultant who was hired by Chemical Solvents, Plaintiff Chemical Solvents began considering the purchase of a large industrial chiller. [Doc. 23 at 7; Doc. 29 at 5.] In March 2007, Tony Datillo spoke with a friend, Bruce Bene, about the Plaintiff's search for a chiller unit. [Doc. 23 at 7; Doc. 29 at 5.] Bruce Bene is an employee of BruceAir Co., a company that specializes in servicing dryers, air compressors, and other large industrial equipment. [Doc. 29-2 at 4.] After some conversation, Datillo asked Bene if he could help Chemical Solvents find a chiller; although BruceAir had never located a chiller that large for a client before, Bene agreed that he would assist Chemical Solvents. [Doc. 23 at 7; Doc. 29 at 5.]

Bene soon located a chiller unit produced by Defendant Advantage that met the Plaintiff's specifications, a Titan Central Chiller, Model TI-180A-460. [Doc. 23 at 7; Doc. 29 at 6.] On March 2, 2007,  [*3] Bene contacted Advantage to ask about the availability of Titan units; in response, Advantage told Bene that it had custom-manufactured a Titan chiller for a customer, but that the unit was ultimately never purchased and told Bene that the custom-manufactured unit was for sale. [Doc. 23 at 7; Doc. 29 at 6-7.] Soon afterwards, Bruce Bene arranged a meeting between Advantage and representatives from Chemical Solvents to inspect the unit and discuss a purchase price. [Id. at 7.] This meeting occurred at Advantage's Indiana facility. [Id. at 7.]

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41378 *; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P18,592; 2011 WL 1326034

CHEMICAL SOLVENTS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. ADVANTAGE ENGINEERING, INC., Defendant.

CORE TERMS

chiller, Chemical, tubes, corrosion, warranty, installation, copper, reliable, privity, abrogation, inspection, baffles, steel, manufacturer, training, non-moving, machine, truck, qualifications, evaporators, workmanlike, scientific, preempted, workmanship, condensers, merchantability, negotiation, unresolved, bumblebee, custom