Summary
dismissing negligent misrepresentation and/or fraudulent inducement claims against both defendants under economic loss doctrine and Werwinsk, where plaintiff maintained claim for breach of contract against window manufacturer, and claims for breach of express and implied warranties against manufacturer and intermediary entity, with which plaintiff had no contract but which also made alleged product misrepresentations which induced purchase
Summary of this case from Axiall Corp. v. Descote S.A.S.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 09-5038.
March 9, 2010
ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of March, 2010, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff's response thereto, Defendants' reply thereon, and for the reasons set forth in this Court's March 9, 2010 Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 4) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
a. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count II, Count III, and Count IV of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
b. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count V and Count VI with respect to Zeluck, Inc., and Count VII in its entirety is DENIED without prejudice.
2. Plaintiffs are hereby granted 30 days to conduct limited discovery on issues relevant to whether the corporate veil should be pierced in this case. Plaintiffs have until April 23, 2010 to further amend their Complaint to allege additional facts supporting their argument that Zeluck and Fenestra are jointly and severally liable for the debts of each other.