Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sowell v. Bourn & Koch, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma

August 15, 2019

JOSEPH A. SOWELL, Plaintiff,
v.
BOURN & KOCH, INC. and JONES & LAMSON MACHINE COMPANY, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          CLAIRE V, LAGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Now before the Court are the following motions: defendant Bourn & Koch, Inc.'s (Bourn & Koch) motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 25), Bourn & Koch's motions in limine (Dkt. # 38, 39), and plaintiff Joseph A. Sowell's (Sowell) motion in limine (Dkt. # 37). Sowell claims that Bourn & Koch is responsible for his injuries stemming from an allegedly defective lathe, which is a machine used for cutting metal. On December 18, 2017, Sowell sued Bourn & Koch in state court under a strict liability theory and a negligence theory. The case was removed to this Court on June 18, 2018. Bourn & Koch moves for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) it is the improper party for Sowell's strict liability claim, and (2) it owes no duty to the Sowell. Both parties also allege in their motions in limine that the other's expert opinion is inadmissible because it presents legal conclusions.

         I.

         Summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986); Kendall v. Watkins, 998 F.2d 848, 850 (10th Cir. 1993). The plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 317. “Summary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed ‘to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.'” Id. at 327.

         “When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. . . . Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.'” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) (citations omitted). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the Sowell's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the [trier of fact] could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. In essence, the inquiry for the Court is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 250. In its review, the Court construes the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Garratt v. Walker, 164 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 1998).

         II.

         The following facts are undisputed. On July 1, 2014, Sowell, an employee of Mattsco Supply Co. (Mattsco), was injured when a piece of metal was released from a lathe manufactured and designed by defendant Jones & Lamson Machine Company (Jones & Lamson) and owned by Mattsco. Dkt. # 25, at 1-2; Dkt. # 2-2, at 1. Sowell suffered permanent damage to his arm. Id. at 2. On February 14, 2002, prior to Sowell's injury, Jones & Lamson filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Dkt. # 25, at 3. As a part of its liquidation, Jones & Lamson sold its intellectual and intangible property to BF Acquisitions, LLC (BF Acquisitions). Id. at 3-4. BF Acquisitions in turn sold Jones & Lamson's intellectual and intangible property to Bourn & Koch.

         Id. at 4; see also Dkt. # 25-2, at 4. Bourn & Koch is an Illinois company that builds machines for a variety of industrial applications. Id. at 2. Bourn & Koch also manufactures and services parts for a number of machines made by other companies, including machines originally made by Jones & Lamson. Id.

         The BF Acquisitions to Bourn & Koch transaction was detailed in an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). Id. The APA includes a choice of law provision specifying Ohio law. Dkt. # 25-2, at 11. There is no indemnification clause or liability clause in the APA. Dkt. # 26, at 4; see Dkt. # 25-2, at 2-13. Bourn & Koch did not assume any liens under the APA. Id. at 6. The APA states that all assets, including intellectual and intangible property as well as certain named tangible assets, “shall be purchased, sold, transferred, conveyed and assigned . . . “AS IS, ” “WHERE IS” condition with all faults.” Id., at 6. The “intangible property” Bourn & Koch acquired consisted of the following:

all advertising materials, existing customer lists (including, to the extent included in such lists, the names and addressees of current, past and prospective customers of [Jones & Lamson and Fellows, the other company whose assets were acquired]), price lists, supplier lists, drawings, designs, quality control specifications, cost analyses, flow sheets, parts lists, process sheets, instruction manuals, and other records of [BF Acquisitions] which relate exclusively to [Jones & Lamson and Fellows] or relate exclusively to the Purchased Assets (excluding the telephone and facsimile numbers).

         The “intellectual property rights” Bourn & Koch acquired consisted of the following:

all intellectual and proprietary property of [BF Acquisitions] used or held for use exclusively in [Jones & Lamson and Fellows] as it exists in any jurisdiction, in each case, to the extent owned by, licensed to (to the extent such licenses are assignable), or otherwise used or held for use by [BF Acquisitions], including:
(1) Computer software and related source codes, objective code, and documentation related thereto used exclusively in the Business [Jones & Lamson and Fellows];
(2) trade secrets, including, without limitation, designs, research and development information, technical information, specifications, operating and maintenance manuals, methods, technology, engineering data and drawings, know-how, processes, proprietary data, formulae, mask words, inventions and discoveries, industrial designs and other proprietary rights, whether or not patentable or ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.