Advanced Flexible Circuits v. GE Sensing & Inspection, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Advanced Flexible Circuits v. GE Sensing & Inspection, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/24

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 2007

ADVANCED FLEXI BLE CI RCUI TS, I NC. ,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

GE SENSI NG & I NSPECTI ON TECHNOLOGI ES GMBH; GE SENSI NG,DI VI SI ON OF CARI BE GE I NTERNATI ONAL OF PUERTO RI CO, I NC. ,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Gust avo A. Gel p , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Tor r uel l a and Li pez, Ci r cui t J udges.

Wi l f r edo A. Gi gel , Sr . , wi t h whomLaw Of f i ces of Wi l f r edo A.Gi gel , was on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Mi chael D. Fi sse, wi t h whom Dai gl e, Fi sse & Kesseni ch, PLC,was on br i ef , f or appel l ees.

Mar ch 20, 2015


2/24

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Thi s case st ems f r om t he

t er mi nat i on of pr econt r act ual negot i at i ons bet ween t wo

cor por at i ons. Pl ai nt i f f - Appel l ant , Advanced Fl exi bl e Ci r cui t s

( "AFC") , ent er ed i nt o negot i at i ons wi t h Def endant s- Appel l ees, GE

Sensi ng & I nspect i on Technol ogi es GmbH and GE Sensi ng, Di vi si on of

Car i be GE I nt er nat i onal of Puer t o Ri co, I nc. ( col l ect i vel y, "GE") ,

f or AFC t o manuf actur e and suppl y t hermal f i l ament s f or GE t o use

i n i t s pr oduct i on of car di ac cat het er s. Af t er about t wo year s of

negot i at i ons bet ween t he par t i es, but pr i or t o t he execut i on of a

cont r act , GE t er mi nat ed negot i at i ons wi t h AFC. AFC subsequent l y

f i l ed sui t agai nst GE i n t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he

Di st r i ct of Puer t o Ri co, al l egi ng t hat GE was l i abl e f or

pr econt r actual damages under t he Puer t o Ri co doct r i ne of cul pa i n

cont r ahendo f or ar bi t r ar i l y and unj ust i f i abl y wi t hdr awi ng f r om

cont r act ual negot i at i ons wi t h AFC. 1 Bot h par t i es f i l ed

cr oss- mot i ons f or summar y j udgment ; t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed AFC' s

mot i on and gr ant ed GE' s mot i on, t hus di smi ss i ng AFC' s cl ai ms

agai nst GE.

AFC now appeal s t hat deci si on, ar gui ng t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t er r ed i n f i ndi ng t hat t her e was no genui ne di sput e as t o any

mat er i al f act s r egar di ng t he cul pa i n cont r ahendo cl ai m. AFC

1 Under Puer t o Ri co l aw, t he t or t - l aw doct r i ne of cul pa i ncont r ahendo " r equi r es par t i es t o negot i at e i n good f ai t h. " Ysi emCor p. v. Commerci al Net Lease Real t y, I nc. , 328 F. 3d 20, 23- 24 ( 1stCi r . 2003) .

-2-


3/24

f ur t her cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s di scret i on i n

sanct i oni ng AFC f or i t s al l eged f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s "ant i - f er r et r ul e, " Local Rul e 56, i n i t s opposi t i on t o

GE' s mot i on f or summary j udgment . See D. P. R. Ci v. R. 56. 2 GE

r esponds by assert i ng t hat : ( 1) GE was j ust i f i ed i n wi t hdr awi ng

f r om negot i at i ons due t o AFC' s f ai l ur e t o pr oduce sat i sf actor y

sampl es of t he f i l ament s; ( 2) AFC t hus coul d not have had a

r easonabl e expect at i on of f i nal i zi ng a cont r act wi t h GE; ( 3) i n t he

al t er nat i ve, AFC' s al l eged damages are not r ecover abl e under cul pa

i n cont r ahendo or are ot herwi se unsuppor t ed by t he evi dence; and

( 4) t he di str i ct cour t pr oper l y appl i ed i t s ant i - f er r et r ul es i n

sanct i oni ng AFC f or i t s f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h Local Rul e 56.

Af t er r evi ewi ng t he r ecor d and t he par t i es' f i l i ngs, we

concl ude that AFC has of f ered no competent evi dence permi t t i ng a

f i ndi ng of l i abi l i t y on i t s cul pa i n cont r ahendo cl ai m. The t wo

par t i es engaged i n pr econt r act ual negot i at i ons, and af t er t he

i ni t i al sampl e uni t s suppl i ed by AFC f ai l ed mul t i pl e qual i t y and

per f or mance t est s, GE ul t i mat el y wi t hdr ew f r omnegot i at i ons. Ot her

2 AFC nomi nal l y r ai ses a t hi r d i ssue, "[ w] het her t he [ di st r i ctcour t ] er r ed i n f i ndi ng t hat pl ai nt i f f / appel l ant had not met t hest andar d f or gr ant i ng of summar y j udgment i n i t s f avor . " However ,t hi s f or mul at i on i s mi sl eadi ng. Rat her t han set t i ng out a di st i nct

i ssue, t he cor r espondi ng sect i on of AFC' s br i ef mer el y cont i nues t oar gue t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d not have gr ant ed GE' s mot i onf or summar y j udgment and shoul d not have sanct i oned AFC under LocalRul e 56. I n so doi ng, AFC does not ar gue t hat i t s own cr oss- mot i onf or summar y j udgment shoul d have been grant ed, but i nst ead arguest hat " i t woul d have been mor e appr opr i at e . . . t o deny bot h si des'mot i ons and l et t he j ur y deci de. "

-3-


4/24

t han specul at i ve, concl usor y al l egat i ons, AFC has of f er ed no

evi dence t hat GE' s t er mi nat i on of t hose negot i at i ons was ar bi t r ar y,

unj ust i f i ed, or ot her wi se wr ongf ul . Accor di ngl y, we af f i r m t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summar y j udgment i n f avor of

Def endant s- Appel l ees. Secondl y, we concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t di d not abuse i t s di scret i on i n sanct i oni ng AFC f or f ai l i ng

t o compl y wi t h t he cour t ' s l ocal r ul es.

I. Background

We begi n wi t h an overvi ew of t he f act ual backgr ound,

drawn f r omt he summary j udgment r ecord and vi ewed i n t he l i ght most

f avor abl e t o Pl ai nt i f f - Appel l ant AFC. See Tobi n v. Fed. Expr ess

Cor p. , 775 F. 3d 448, 449 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

A. The Negotiations

GE i s i n t he busi ness of manuf actur i ng and assembl i ng

var i ous pr oduct s, i ncl udi ng component par t s of medi cal cat het er

devi ces, whi ch ar e assembl ed at a f aci l i t y i n Aasco, Puer t o Ri co

( "Aasco Faci l i t y" ) , and t hen di st r i but ed t o i t s cust omer s. One of

t he pi eces of a medi cal catheter component par t assembl ed at t he

Aasco Faci l i t y i s a " t her mal f i l ament " ( ot her wi se known as a

"heat er f i l ament " ) . GE pur chases t hese heat er f i l ament s f r om

suppl i er s bef or e i ncor por at i ng t hem i nt o the assembl ed cat het er

component s whi ch i t t hen, i n t ur n, sel l s t o i t s cust omer s.

AFC i s a Mi nnesota cor por at i on. Dur i ng t he negot i at i ons

bet ween GE and AFC, AFC had one empl oyee: Ther esa Bai l ey, who

-4-


5/24

served as AFC' s pr esi dent , secret ar y, and t r easurer . I n t he summer

of 2006, Manuel Hi dal go, a sal es r epr esent at i ve f or an or gani zat i on

cal l ed "Yes Amer i ca, " appr oached Mar i t za Ced, t he Mat er i al Leader

f or GE at t he Aasco Faci l i t y. Hi dal go t ol d Ced t hat he was a

sal es agent f or a company, AFC, t hat was capabl e of engi neer i ng and

manuf actur i ng t he heat er f i l ament used i n the cat heter component

assembl ed by GE at t he Aasco Faci l i t y; Hi dal go pr oposed t o Ced

t hat AFC coul d suppl y t he heat er f i l ament f or GE. Ced t ol d

Hi dal go t hat GE cur r ent l y pur chased t he heat er f i l ament s f r om

anot her suppl i er , t hat GE had i ncompl et e i nf or mat i on about t he

f i l ament , and that GE di d not know how t o manuf actur e t he f i l ament

i t sel f .

Hi dal go i nf ormed Ced t hat AFC: ( 1) was exper i enced i n

manuf act ur i ng heat er f i l ament s; ( 2) had exper t i se i n t he

engi neer i ng and manuf act ur i ng of heat er f i l ament s; and ( 3) was

capabl e of det er mi ni ng, wi t hout f ur t her i nf or mat i on, how t he heat er

f i l ament manuf act ur ed by GE' s t hen- cur r ent suppl i er was engi neer ed

and const r uct ed. Ced expl ai ned t o Hi dal go t hat AFC woul d have t o

submi t sampl es of t he heat er f i l ament s t o GE f or qual i t y t est i ng.

Ced f ur t her expl ai ned t hat t he deci si on t o pur chase t he f i l ament s

was cont i ngent upon t he sampl es passi ng GE' s qual i t y t est s. I f

AFC' s sampl e heat er f i l ament s passed t he qual i t y i nspect i on and

t est s by GE, t hen AFC' s f i l ament s coul d be appr oved f or suppl y. GE

di d not pr ovi de speci f i c t echni cal speci f i cat i ons, schemat i cs, or

-5-


6/24

engi neer i ng dr awi ngs t o AFC, but r ather gave AFC t wo physi cal

sampl es of t he heat er f i l ament i t needed.

AFC and GE began negot i at i ons on a "pr oposed cont r act " i n

J anuar y of 2007, and t he negot i at i ons cont i nued f or t wo years. AFC

acknowl edges t hat t he negot i at i ons f r om 2007 unt i l Mar ch of 2009

"compr i se[d] t he t echni cal per i od, " dur i ng whi ch i nf or mat i on was

exchanged and t est s wer e conduct ed, and t hat i f ei t her par t y

wi t hdr ew dur i ng t hi s per i od, t her e woul d be no r eper cussi ons.

I n 2009, Ul r i ch Angel i , t he Seni or Manager and Gl obal

Commodi t y Leader f or GE, became personal l y i nvol ved i n negot i at i ons

wi t h Bai l ey regar di ng AFC' s proposed suppl y of t he heat er

f i l ament s. Dur i ng t he spr i ng and summer of 2009, t he t wo par t i es

exchanged dr af t s of a pur chase agr eement . They negot i ated vi a

emai l r egar di ng t he t erms of t he agr eement , i ncl udi ng t he dur at i on

of t he cont r act , t he appl i cabl e l aw t hat woul d gover n t he

agr eement , and t he pr i ce per uni t . Angel i i nf or med Bai l ey t hat AFC

woul d need t o pr oduce sampl e heat er f i l ament s t hat coul d pass t he

r equi si t e qual i t y t est s bef or e t he f i nal cont r act t er ms coul d be

set t l ed.

Accor di ng t o GE, AFC submi t t ed a t ot al of f our gr oups of

sampl e heat er f i l ament s dur i ng t he two year s of negot i at i on, and

al l of t hem f ai l ed qual i t y t est i ng "because t hey di d not sat i sf y

t he speci f i ed di mensi onal , mechani cal , or el ect r i cal par amet er s

t hat wer e r equi r ed bef or e t he heat er f i l ament s coul d be used i n

-6-


7/24

medi cal cat het er devi ces. " AFC, f or i t s par t , mai nt ai ns t hat t he

del ays and t est f ai l ur es wer e not t he r esul t of AFC' s shor t comi ngs

or i mpr oper manuf actur i ng but r ather "were due t o i mpr oper , wr ong

and mi sgui ded i nf ormat i on pr ovi ded by GE. "

On J une 25, 2009, bef or e t he test i ng of t he f our t h and

f i nal gr oup of sampl e el ement s, AFC sent GE t wo si gned copi es of a

negot i at ed pur chase agreement bet ween t he t wo compani es; GE never

execut ed t hi s cont r act . The f our t h and f i nal sampl e was rej ect ed

by GE i n August 2009 due t o pr obl ems wi t h i t s di mensi ons, among

other r easons. By Sept ember 2009, GE had wi t hdr awn f r om t he

negot i at i ons.

On Sept ember 21, 2009, af t er t he negot i at i ons bet ween AFC

and GE had been t ermi nated by GE, Bai l ey sent an e- mai l t o Angel i

wi t h a f i nal i nvoi ce of $183, 232. 00 f or " t he devel opment cost s and

t ot al hour s spent by al l t he par t i ci pant s i n t he suppl y chai n who

cont r i but ed to t he devel opment and successf ul out come of t hi s

pr oj ect . " I n t he same e- mai l , Bai l ey al so ment i oned t hat AFC

t hought t he "proj ect was near t he pr oduct i on phase, " and t hat AFC

had t r i ed t o get i n cont act wi t h GE t o f i nd out "why the pr oj ect

was abr upt l y cancel l ed. " GE r ef used t o pay, and AFC subsequent l y

f i l ed t hi s l awsui t .

B. Procedural Background

On J anuar y 29, 2010, AFC f i l ed sui t agai nst GE i n t he

di st r i ct cour t , cl ai mi ng t hat GE had wr ongf ul l y wi t hdr awn f r om

-7-


8/24

cont r act ual negot i at i ons wi t h AFC. On t hat basi s, under t he

doct r i ne of cul pa i n cont r ahendo, AFC sought r ecover y of

pr econt r act ual damages al l egedl y i ncur r ed by AFC dur i ng i t s

at t empt s t o manuf actur e t he heat er f i l ament s t o suppl y to GE.

Af t er di scover y, GE f i l ed a mot i on f or summary j udgment

t o di smi ss AFC' s cl ai m because AFC had f ai l ed t o pr oduce any

evi dence i n suppor t of i t s cul pa i n cont r ahendo cl ai m. I n t he

al t er nat i ve, GE al so moved f or par t i al summar y j udgment t o di smi ss

AFC' s cl ai ms f or t he f ol l owi ng damages " not r ecover abl e under a

cul pa i n cont r ahendo cl ai m: ( 1) damages al l egedl y i ncur r ed by

par t i es ot her t han AFC; ( 2) ' hour l y' char ges of t hi r d par t i es and

unsuppor t ed by evi dence; and ( 3) i nci dent al and consequent i al

damages. " I n r esponse t o GE, AFC f i l ed i t s own mot i on f or par t i al

summary j udgment ; t hi s mot i on was deni ed ( wi t hout pr ej udi ce)

because AFC f ai l ed t o compl y wi t h t he rel evant r ul es, but t he

di st r i ct cour t al l owed AFC t o f i l e a r enewed mot i on f or par t i al

summar y j udgment .

I n r ul i ng on t hese mot i ons, t he di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned

t hat AFC' s count er st at ement of mat er i al f act s i n opposi t i on t o GE' s

mot i on f or summary j udgment f ai l ed t o compl y wi t h Local Rul e 56 f or

t wo r easons. Fi r st , t he di st r i ct cour t st at ed t hat AFC had f ai l ed

t o pr oper l y cont r over t t he st at ement of undi sput ed f act s suppor t i ng

GE' s mot i on f or summary j udgment , because AFC' s opposi ng st at ement

"d[ i d] not admi t , deny, or qual i f y any f act , nor d[ i d] i t use t he

-8-


9/24

wor ds admi t , deny or qual i f y or any synonymt her eof t o descr i be i t s

st ance r egar di ng each f act . " The di st r i ct cour t not ed t hat i t di d

not know whether AFC' s "di sput ed" f act s were meant t o deny or

qual i f y GE' s st at ement of undi sput ed f act s.

Second, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat , r egar dl ess of

whet her AFC meant t o deny or qual i f y gi ven f act s, AFC vi ol at ed

Local Rul e 56 by " f ai l [ i ng] t o pr ovi de any r equi r ed r ecor d

r ef er ences i n i t s opposi ng st at ement of mat er i al f act s. "

Consequent l y, t he di st r i ct cour t "onl y consi der [ ed] t hose par t s of

AFC' s opposi t i on t o GE Sensi ng' s st at ement of uncont est ed f act s

t hat compl [ i ed] wi t h Local Rul e 56 - - i . e. , t he f act s deemed

admi t t ed. " However , t he di st r i ct cour t expl i ci t l y st at ed t hat , i n

r ul i ng on GE' s mot i on f or summary j udgment , t he cour t consi dered

AFC' s s t at ement of f act s t hat accompani ed i t s own cr oss- mot i on f or

par t i al summary j udgment .

Eval uat i ng t he mer i t s of t he compet i ng summary j udgment

mot i ons, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat GE di d not vi ol at e t he

doct r i ne of cul pa i n cont r ahendo. The cour t r easoned t hat t he

evi dence di d not est abl i sh t hat GE had f ai l ed t o act i n good f ai t h

or was unj ust i f i ed i n wi t hdr awi ng f r omt he cont r act ual negot i at i ons

wi t h AFC. Fur t hermore, t he evi dence di d not show t hat AFC coul d

have had a reasonabl e expect at i on of ent er i ng i nt o a cont r act wi t h

GE, because AFC admi t t ed t hat i t never pr ovi ded a sampl e gr oup of

heat er f i l ament s t hat passed GE' s qual i t y t est i ng. I n r ej ect i ng

-9-


10/24

AFC' s argument t hat GE di d not negot i at e i n good f ai t h, t he

di st r i ct cour t hi ghl i ght ed t hat AFC was awar e t hat GE "di d not

manuf act ur e t he heat er f i l ament , di d not know how t o manuf act ur e

t he heat er f i l ament , and di d not have al l t he i nf or mat i on r egar di ng

t he heat er f i l ament . " Ther ef or e, AFC coul d not have r easonabl y

expect ed GE t o have pr ovi ded t hemwi t h exact speci f i cat i ons f or t he

heat er f i l ament . The di st r i ct cour t f ur t her emphasi zed t hat AFC

was at f aul t f or f ai l i ng t o pr ovi de heat er f i l ament s t hat met

qual i t y st andar ds, as GE r el i ed on AFC' s r epr esent at i on t hat i t was

an exper i enced exper t i n engi neer i ng and manuf act ur i ng qual i t y

heat er f i l ament s.

Di smi ssi ng AFC' s cont ent i on t hat i t r easonabl y expect ed

t he cont r act t o be compl et ed, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat t he

evi dence showed t hat AFC knew i t had t o pr oduce a sampl e gr oup of

heat er f i l ament s t hat met al l t he r el evant qual i t y st andar ds bef or e

an agr eement coul d be r eached, and AFC never produced a sampl e

gr oup t hat passed t he qual i t y t est i ng and val i dat i on pr ocess.

Accor di ngl y, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed summar y j udgment i n f avor

of GE, di smi ssed AFC' s cul pa i n cont r ahendo cl ai ms, and deni ed

AFC' s r enewed mot i on f or summary j udgment . The di st r i ct cour t di d

not addr ess GE' s al t er nat i ve mot i on f or par t i al summar y j udgment ,

as t hat mot i on was t hus moot .

Wi t h t he f oregoi ng backgr ound i n mi nd, we exami ne t he

pr i nci pal i ssue pr esent ed i n t hi s appeal : whet her t he di st r i ct

-10-


11/24

cour t , i n gr ant i ng summar y j udgment i n f avor of GE, cor r ect l y

concl uded that t her e was no genui ne di sput e regar di ng f act s

mat er i al t o whet her GE i s l i abl e t o AFC under a t heor y of cul pa i n

cont r ahendo.

II. Summary Judgment on AFC's Culpa in Contrahendo Claim

We revi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o gr ant summar y

j udgment de novo, vi ewi ng t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avorabl e t o

AFC, t he nonmovant . See Kl under v. Br own Uni v. , 778 F. 3d 24, 30

( 1st Ci r . 2015) . Summary j udgment i s pr oper l y gr ant ed when t he

movant shows t hat t here i s no genui ne di sput e as t o any mater i al

f act and t he movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw.

See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) . We ar e not t o make "cr edi bi l i t y

determi nat i ons or wei gh t he evi dence" i n determi ni ng whether

summary j udgment shoul d be gr ant ed. Anderson v. Li ber t y Lobby,

I nc. , 477 U. S. 242, 255 ( 1986) .

I n order t o def eat a mot i on f or summary j udgment , t he

nonmovant may not r est upon some combi nat i on of concl usor y

al l egat i ons, i mpr obabl e i nf er ences, and unsuppor t ed specul at i on,

but must i nst ead pr esent def i ni t e, compet ent evi dence t o r ebut t he

mot i on. See Aher n v. Shi nseki , 629 F. 3d 49, 54 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ;

Mal donado- Deni s v. Cast i l l o- Rodr guez, 23 F. 3d 576, 581- 83 ( 1st

Ci r . 1994) .

Par t i es i nvol ved i n cont r act negot i at i ons ar e gener al l y

"f r ee t o cont r act or t o wi t hdr aw as i t best sui t s t hei r i nt er est s. "

-11-


12/24

Producci ones Tommy Mui z, I nc. v. COPAN, 113 P. R. Dec. 517, 526, 13

P. R. Of f i c. Tr ans. 664, 676 ( P. R. 1982) ( "COPAN") . However , under

t he Puer t o Ri co doct r i ne of cul pa i n cont r ahendo, "pr econt r act ual

negot i at i ons t r i gger a soci al r el at i onshi p whi ch i mposes on t he

par t i es t he dut y t o act i n good f ai t h. " Tor r es v. Gr ac a, 119 P. R.

Dec. 698, 703 ( P. R. 1987) . 3

"Under t hi s doct r i ne, negot i at i ons t owar d an agr eement

can - - even wi t hout a l et t er of i nt ent - - r eadi l y gi ve r i se t o

mut ual expect at i ons t hat t he par t i es wi l l bar gai n i n good f ai t h and

r ef r ai n f r om mi sconduct . " Ysi em Cor p. v. Commer ci al Net Lease

Real t y, I nc. , 328 F. 3d 20, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . The doct r i ne "i s

desi gned pr i mar i l y t o pr ot ect r el i ance r at her t han expect at i on

i nt er est s. " I d. ; see al so Vel zquez Casi l l as v. For est Labs. ,

I nc. , 90 F. Supp. 2d 161, 166 ( D. P. R. 2000) ( observi ng t hat cul pa

i n cont r ahendo i s gener al l y "used t o compensat e a par t y f or t he

expenses i t i ncur r ed i n r el i ance on t he ot her par t y' s of f er t o f or m

a cont r act when t he cont r act negot i at i ons break down" ( ci t i ng

3 Cul pa i n cont r ahendo i s a cl ai m soundi ng i n t or t , not i ncont r act . See Ysi em, 328 F. 3d at 24; Shel l ey v. Tr af al gar HousePub. Co. , 987 F. Supp. 84, 86 ( D. P. R. 1997) ( "char act er i z[ i ng] t hecul pa i n cont r ahendo act i on as a l egal act i on i n t or t s" ) ; COPAN, 13

P. R. Of f i c. Tr ans. at 679 ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he doct r i ne ar i ses f r omAr t i cl e 1802 of t he Ci vi l Code, whi ch i mposes ext r acont r act uall i abi l i t y f or act i ng i n a t or t i ous or wr ongf ul manner dur i ngpr el i mi nar y negot i at i ons) . The t wo l eadi ng cases f r omt he Supr emeCour t of Puert o Ri co exami ni ng t he cul pa i n cont r ahendo doct r i near e COPAN, 13 P. R. Of f i c. Trans. 664, and Col n v. Gl amor ous Nai l s,167 P. R. Dec. 33 ( P. R. 2006) .

-12-


13/24

Snyder v. Champi on Real t y Corp. , 631 F. 2d 1253, 125556 ( 5t h Ci r .

1980) ) ) .

A par t y' s wi t hdr awal f r omcont r act ual negot i at i ons may be

consi der ed t o be a vi ol at i on of t he dut y of good f ai t h i f : ( 1) t he

wi t hdr awal was ar bi t r ar y or wi t hout j ust i f i cat i on; and ( 2) t he

ot her par t y had a r easonabl e expect at i on t hat a cont r act ual

agr eement woul d be consummated. See, e. g. , COPAN, 13 P. R. Of f i c.

Tr ans. at 678- 79; see al so WHTV Broad. Cor p. v. Centenni al Commc' ns

Cor p. , 460 F. Supp. 2d 297, 306 ( D. P. R. 2006) ( st at i ng t hat t he

doct r i ne of cul pa i n cont r ahendo al l ows f or pr econt r act ual

l i abi l i t y of a par t y who "f ai l s t o negot i at e i n good f ai t h when t he

other part y had r easonabl e expectat i ons t hat an agr eement woul d

f i nal l y be r eached among t he par t i es" ( ci t i ng Gl amor ous Nai l s, 167

P. R. Dec. at 45- 47) ) .

To det er mi ne l i abi l i t y under cul pa i n cont r ahendo, cour t s

have eval uated t he ci r cumst ances of t he wi t hdr awal f r om

negot i at i ons by consi der i ng cer t ai n f act or s, i ncl udi ng:

( 1) t he devel opment of t he negot i at i ons, ( 2)how di d [ t he negot i at i ons] begi n, ( 3) t hei rcour se, ( 4) t he conduct of t he par t i est hr oughout [ t he negot i at i ons] , ( 5) t he st ageat whi ch t he i nt er r upt i on t ook pl ace, [ and]( 6) t he par t i es' r easonabl e expect at i ons t of or ma cont r act , as wel l as any ot her r el evant

ci r cumst ance under t he f act s of t hecase . . . .

Tor r es, 19 P. R. Of f i c. Tr ans. at 749. Accor di ngl y, appl yi ng t he

doct r i ne i nvol ves a cont ext - dependent and f act - i nt ensi ve i nqui r y.

-13-


14/24

We have pr evi ousl y not ed t hat " [ t ] he cul pa i n cont r ahendo t est i s

not ver y pr eci se and t he cour t s appear r easonabl y caut i ous i n

appl yi ng a doct r i ne t hat coul d, i f appl i ed t oo f r eel y, chi l l

negot i at i ons r at her t han f aci l i t at e t hem. " Ysi em, 328 F. 3d at 24.

I mpor t ant l y, t he doct r i ne of cul pa i n cont r ahendo "shoul d be

appl i ed r est r i ct i vel y. " Vel zquez Casi l l as, 90 F. Supp. 2d at 167

( ci t i ng Tor r es, 19 P. R. Of f i c. Tr ans. at 754) .

The mer e "breaki ng of f of negot i at i ons i s not suf f i ci ent

i n and of i t sel f t o creat e l i abi l i t y, " i d. , but rat her i t i s the

"unj ust i f i ed wi t hdr awal or t er mi nat i on of pr econt r act ual

negot i at i ons" t hat resul t s i n l i abi l i t y. See Sat el l i t e Br oad.

Cabl e, I nc. v. Tel ef ni ca de Espaa, S. A. , 807 F. Supp. 218, 219

( D. P. R. 1992) ( emphasi s added) . Thus, " [ a] negot i at i ng par t y may

i ncur cul pa i n cont r ahendo l i abi l i t y i f i t s conduct i s wr ongf ul ,

f r audul ent , or dol ose. " Vel zquez Casi l l as, 90 F. Supp. 2d at 167;

see al so WHTV, 460 F. Supp. 2d at 306 ( " [ I ] n order t o i mpose

l i abi l i t y under t hi s doct r i ne, t her e must be a f i ndi ng of bad f ai t h

or f aul t on t he par t of t he par t y who t er mi nat ed t he negot i at i ons. "

( ci t i ng COPAN, 13 P. R. Of f i c. Tr ans. at 678) ) ; Tor r es, 19 P. R.

Of f i c. Tr ans. at 744 ( " [ T] he act i on f or damages based on cul pa i n

cont r ahendo was not est abl i shed si nce i t was not pr oved t hat t he

def endant s' conduct was wr ongf ul , decei t f ul or f r audul ent . " ) .

Thi s "doct r i ne appl i es even i f t he Def endant ' s conduct

was not i nt ent i onal , but mer el y negl i gent . " WHTV, 460 F. Supp. 2d

-14-


15/24

at 306; see al so Gl amor ous Nai l s, 167 P. R. Dec. at 46 ( st at i ng

t hat t he Supr eme Cour t of Puert o Ri co "has acknowl edged cul pa i n

cont r ahendo not onl y when one of t he par t i es par t i ci pat i ng i n t he

f or mat i on of a cont r act act s i nt ent i onal l y t hr ough dol us [ decei t ] ,

f r aud or abuse of r i ght s, but al so when t hat par t y causes har m by

act i ng negl i gent l y") . 4 I ndeed, t he Supr eme Cour t of Puer t o Ri co

has observed t hat " t he wi de spect r um of gr ounds upon whi ch

pr econt r actual l i abi l i t y may rest " i ncl ude "f aul t , dol us, f r aud,

good f ai t h, abuse of l aw, or ot her gener al pr i nci pl e[ s] of l aw. "

COPAN, 13 P. R. Of f i c. Trans. at 679. Exampl es of wr ongf ul conduct

t hat can gi ve r i se t o cul pa i n cont r ahendo l i abi l i t y i ncl ude t he

f ol l owi ng:

a par t y' s f ai l ur e t o di scl ose i t s l ack ofl egal capaci t y t o ent er i nt o a cont r act ; apar t y' s negot i at i ng wi t hout any i nt ent ofent er i ng i nt o a cont r act but wi t h t he i nt entof obt ai ni ng conf i dent i al busi ness i nf or mat i onf r om t he ot her si de; a par t y' s usi ng t henegot i at i ons not i n or der t o f i nal i ze anagr eement but t o obt ai n some advant age i n i t sdeal i ngs wi t h a t hi r d par t y; or a par t y' sf aul t causi ng t he busi ness t r ansact i on t o bei nef f ect i ve.

Vel zquez Casi l l as, 90 F. Supp. 2d at 167 ( ci t i ng COPAN, 13 P. R.

Of f i c. Tr ans. at 679) .

4 "Dol us or dol o i s a f or mof cont r act ual decei t t hat can ser ve t oi nval i dat e consent t o an ot her wi se val i d cont r act or compr omi se. "Ci t i bank Gl obal Mar ket s, I nc. v. Rodr guez Sant ana, 573 F. 3d 17, 29( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( ci t i ng P. R. Laws. Ann. t i t . 31, 4828) .

-15-


16/24

Her e, AFC has f ai l ed t o pr esent def i ni t e, compet ent

evi dence showi ng such wr ongf ul conduct on behal f of GE. AFC has

not pr esent ed speci f i c f act s suggest i ng t hat GE' s conduct i n t he

negot i at i ons was "wr ongf ul , f r audul ent , or dol ose. " See i d. ; see

al so Ahern, 629 F. 3d at 54 ( st at i ng t hat where nonmovant s bear t he

bur den of pr oof on an i ssue, t hey must poi nt t o speci f i c f act s t o

def eat summary j udgment , and t hey cannot " r el y[ ] upon concl usor y

al l egat i ons, i mpr obabl e i nf er ences, acr i moni ous i nvect i ve, or r ank

specul at i on") . To t he cont r ar y, AFC has ei t her admi t t ed or f ai l ed

t o cont est f act s t hat show t hat GE had val i d r easons f or

wi t hdr awi ng f r om negot i at i ons and f or choosi ng not t o execut e a

cont r act wi t h AFC.

AFC expl i ci t l y admi t t ed t hat i t r epr esent ed t o GE t hat i t

was capabl e of engi neer i ng and manuf act ur i ng qual i t y heat er

f i l ament s. AFC f ur t her r epr esent ed t hat i t had exper i ence wi t h t he

manuf actur e of t he same t ype of heat er f i l ament s sought by GE, and

i t conceded t hat GE r el i ed on t hese repr esent at i ons of exper t i se.

AFC al so admi t t ed t hat , under t he agr eement cont empl ated by t he

par t i es, i t had t o f i r st pr oduce "sampl e" f i l ament s f or "i nspect i on

and t est i ng eval uat i on. " Onl y i f t he sampl es passed t hi s pr ocess

coul d t he f i l ament s t hen be appr oved f or l at er suppl y i n quant i t i es

r equi r ed by GE.

Addi t i onal l y, AFC conceded t hat t he f i r st sampl e "f ai l ed

t he t est " because i t was not a heat er f i l ament , al t hough AFC

-16-


17/24

mai nt ai ns t hat t hi s f ai l ur e was because GE had not pr ovi ded t he

r equi r ed speci f i cat i ons. Fur t her mor e, AFC "was st i l l havi ng

di f f i cul t i es" manuf act ur i ng sampl e f i l ament s as of Mar ch 2, 2009,

and J une 24, 2009.

AFC al so f ai l ed t o cont est cer t ai n ot her f act s al l eged by

GE. 5 Accor di ngl y, as r el evant her e, t he f ol l owi ng addi t i onal f act s

ar e not i n di sput e. Fi r st , i t t ook AFC a per i od of mor e t han t wo

year s t o pr oduce mul t i pl e f i l ament sampl es, i ncl udi ng a del ay of

one year t o det er mi ne t he cor r ect mat er i al t o use. Four di f f er ent

l ot s of sampl e component s were pr ovi ded f r om 2008 t o 2009, and at

l east t hr ee of t hose l ot s f ai l ed qual i f i cat i on t est i ng. 6 Al t hough

AFC al l eges t hat t hese f ai l ur es " wer e due t o i mpr oper , wr ong and

mi sgui ded i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded by GE, " t her e i s no di sput e t hat

t hr ee of t he f our sampl e l ot s pr ovi ded by AFC f ai l ed GE' s qual i t y

t est s - - i ncl udi ng t he f our t h and f i nal sampl e l ot . Regar di ng t he

5 The di st r i ct cour t consi der ed whet her f act s cont ai ned i n AFC' sst at ement of f act s i n suppor t of i t s own cr oss- mot i on f or summar yj udgment cont r adi ct ed any of t he f act s asser t ed by GE. See, e. g. ,Fai r Hous. Counci l of Ri ver si de Cnt y. , I nc. v. Ri ver si de Two, 249F. 3d 1132, 1137 ( 9t h Ci r . 2001) ( hol di ng t hat when a cour tdi sr egards a part y' s mot i on i n opposi t i on t o summary j udgment f orf ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h a l ocal r ul e, t he cour t st i l l has a dut y "t or evi ew t he evi dence pr oper l y submi t t ed i n suppor t of cr oss- mot i onsf or summary j udgment t o det ermi ne whet her t hat evi dencedemonst r at es a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act " ) ; see al so P. R. Am.

I ns. Co. v. Ri ver a- Vzquez, 603 F. 3d 125, 133 ( 1st Ci r . 2010)( st at i ng t hat when "cr oss- mot i ons f or summar y j udgment ar e f i l edsi mul t aneousl y, or near l y so, t he di st r i ct cour t or di nar i l y shoul dconsi der t he two mot i ons at t he same t i me") .

6 GE mai nt ai ns t hat al l f our sampl e l ot s f ai l ed t he qual i f i cat i ont est i ng.

-17-


18/24

f i r st t wo of t he f our sampl e l ot s, AFC has f ur t her admi t t ed t hat i t

was r easonabl e f or GE t o rej ect t he sampl es due to thei r poor

qual i t y. 7 Moreover , AFC has presented no evi dence nor argument

showi ng that GE was obl i gat ed or expect ed t o ent er i nt o a cont r act

wi t h AFC i f j ust some of t he sampl es passed t he qual i t y t est i ng.

Addi t i onal l y, i n August 2009, f ol l owi ng t he t est i ng

f ai l ur e of t he f our t h l ot of sampl e f i l ament s, AFC was pl anni ng t o

advi se GE t hat unl ess di f f er ent ar r angement s wer e made - - i ncl udi ng

GE payi ng AFC f or t he pr oduct i on of addi t i onal sampl es - - AFC woul d

not go f or war d wi t h t he pr oj ect . For i t s par t , GE' s deci si on t o

wi t hdr aw f r om negot i at i ons wi t h AFC was based pr i mar i l y on AFC' s

mul t i pl e f ai l ed at t empt s t o pr oduce qual i t y sampl es, but al so ot her

f actor s such as: AFC' s del ays i n pr oduct i on, i t s f ai l ur e t o

par t i ci pat e i n weekl y stat us meet i ngs, and i t s r el i ance on t hi r d

par t i es f or pr oduct i on. On t he basi s of t he f or egoi ng, t he summar y

j udgment r ecor d cont ai ns evi dence of undi sput ed f act s showi ng t hat

GE' s wi t hdr awal f r om negot i at i ons was j ust i f i ed and was not

arbi t r ary or ot herwi se wr ongf ul . See WHTV, 460 F. Supp. 2d at 306

( obser vi ng t hat t he mer e wi t hdr awal f r om pr econt r act ual

negot i at i ons does not - - i n and of i t sel f - - gi ve r i se t o l i abi l i t y

under cul pa i n cont r ahendo) ; see al so Sat el l i t e Br oad. Cabl e, I nc. ,

7 Even i n AFC' s ( pr oper l y di sr egar ded and st r i cken) opposi t i on t oGE' s mot i on f or summary j udgment , AFC onl y di sput ed t hi s f act t ot he extent t hat " t he r ej ect i on was not due t o i mpr opermanuf act ur i ng but t o i mpr oper , wr ong and mi sgui ded i nf ormat i onpr ovi ded by GE. "

-18-


19/24

807 F. Supp. at 219 ( est abl i shi ng t hat i t i s onl y the unj ust i f i ed

t er mi nat i on of pr econt r act ual negot i at i ons t hat r esul t s i n

l i abi l i t y under t he doct r i ne) . By cont r ast , AFC f ai l ed t o pr oper l y

poi nt t he cour t t o any evi dence i n t he summary j udgment r ecor d

showi ng wr ongf ul conduct on behal f of GE. See WHTV, 460 F. Supp.

2d at 306 ( ci t i ng COPAN, 113 P. R. Dec. at 529) . 8

AFC argues t hat GE was al so engagi ng i n negot i at i ons wi t h

an al t er nat i ve suppl i er : a Chi nese company that of f er ed bet t er

pr i ci ng. However , AFC f ai l ed t o pr oper l y suppor t t hi s ar gument

wi t h a ci t at i on t o a speci f i c pl ace i n t he r ecor d. Mor eover , even

assumi ng that GE was i ndeed negot i at i ng wi t h anot her suppl i er , AFC

has put f or t h no evi dence - and i ndeed, has not even made a

speci f i c al l egat i on - showi ng why such conduct woul d be wr ongf ul

under t hese ci r cumst ances. Nor has AFC pr ovi ded us wi t h l egal

aut hor i t y est abl i shi ng t hat engagi ng i n si mul t aneous pr econt r act ual

8 Gi ven t hat t he appl i cat i on of cul pa i n cont r ahendo dependsheavi l y on t he f act s and cont ext of each case, we do not opi ne hereon t he t ypes of conduct t hat woul d be ei t her necessary orsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh l i abi l i t y i n ever y hypot het i cal case. Wenonethel ess not e that AFC has f ai l ed t o adduce any evi dence thatmi ght suggest wr ongf ul conduct on behal f of GE. Asi de f r omunsuppor t ed, concl usor y al l egat i ons, AFC has submi t t ed no evi denceshowi ng, f or exampl e: t hat GE never had any i nt ent i on of execut i nga cont r act ; t hat GE under t ook the negot i at i ons wi t h t he sol e i nt entof obt ai ni ng conf i dent i al busi ness i nf or mat i on f r om AFC; t hat GE

used t he negot i at i ons not i n or der t o f i nal i ze an agr eement butonl y to obt ai n some advant age i n i t s deal i ngs wi t h a t hi r d par t y;or t hat GE was at f aul t i n causi ng t he busi ness t r ansact i on t o bei nef f ect i ve. See Vel zquez Casi l l as, 90 F. Supp. 2d at 167 ( ci t i ngCOPAN, 13 P. R. Of f i c. Tr ans. at 679) ( l i st i ng t hese as exampl es ofwr ongf ul conduct pot ent i al l y gi vi ng r i se t o pr econt r act uall i abi l i t y) .

-19-


20/24

negot i at i ons wi t h t wo al t er nat i ve suppl i er s i s wr ongf ul . Ther e i s

not hi ng i nher ent l y nef ar i ous about engagi ng i n si mul t aneous

negot i at i ons wi t h compet i ng suppl i er s. Sur el y many busi nesses must

do so r egul ar l y. Asi de f r om vague, unsuppor t ed al l egat i ons and

specul at i on, AFC f ai l ed t o pr esent any evi dence of conduct by GE

t hat was "wr ongf ul , f r audul ent , or dol ose. " See Vel zquez

Casi l l as, 90 F. Supp. 2d at 167; see al so Aher n, 629 F. 3d at 54;

Mal donado- Deni s, 23 F. 3d at 581.

AFC f ur t her ar gues t hat GE was at " f aul t " i n "causi ng t he

busi ness t r ansact i on t o be i nef f ect i ve, " because GE f ai l ed t o

pr ovi de t he necessar y t echni cal i nf or mat i on t o AFC. See Vel zquez

Casi l l as, 90 F. Supp. 2d at 167 ( ci t i ng COPAN, 13 P. R. Of f i c.

Tr ans. at 679) . Thi s ar gument f ai l s f or at l east t wo r easons.

Fi r st , AFC has not pr ovi ded us any l egal aut hor i t y est abl i shi ng

t hat such a f ai l ur e, wi t hout mor e, woul d gi ve r i se t o cul pa i n

cont r ahendo l i abi l i t y. Second, t he undi sput ed evi dence r egar di ng

t he t echni cal speci f i cat i ons shows t hat nei t her GE nor AFC knew how

t o manuf actur e t he heat i ng f i l ament s, t hat AFC was aware of GE' s

l ack of knowl edge, t hat AFC hel d i t sel f out as an exper t capabl e of

r ever se- engi neer i ng t he f i l ament s, and t hat GE di d not f al sel y

r epr esent t o AFC t hat i t woul d pr ovi de t he necessar y t echni cal

bl uepr i nt s. I n l i ght of t hi s evi dence, i t i s cl ear t hat GE was not

at f aul t , nor di d i t cause t he t r ansact i on t o be i nef f ect i ve.

-20-


21/24

Rat her t han ci t i ng "def i ni t e, compet ent " r ecor d evi dence

t hat shows speci f i c f act s establ i shi ng a genui ne di sput e as t o any

wr ongf ul conduct by GE, AFC has i nst ead r el i ed upon a combi nat i on

of concl usory al l egat i ons, i mpr obabl e i nf er ences, and unsuppor t ed

specul at i ons. See Aher n, 629 F. 3d at 54; Mal donado- Deni s, 23 F. 3d

at 581- 83. Gi ven t he f or egoi ng, AFC has f ai l ed t o ef f ect i vel y

r ebut t he evi dence and ar gument s pr esent ed by GE i n i t s mot i on f or

summary j udgment . On t he basi s of t he undi sput ed f act s, GE was

ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw, and i t s mot i on was

pr oper l y gr ant ed.

III. Local Rule 56

AFC f ur t her ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s

di scret i on i n appl yi ng t he cour t ' s ant i - f er r et r ul e under Local

Rul e 56 t o di sr egar d AFC' s count er st at ement of f act s i n i t s

opposi t i on t o GE' s mot i on f or summar y j udgment . Rej ect i ng t hi s

argument , we f i nd no such abuse of di scr et i on.

Local Rul e 56 " r equi r es a par t y movi ng f or summary

j udgment t o submi t a ' separ at e, shor t , and conci se st at ement of

mat er i al f act s, set f or t h i n number ed par agr aphs, as t o whi ch t he

movi ng par t y cont ends t her e i s no genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act . ' "

P. R. Am. I ns. Co. , 603 F. 3d at 130 ( quot i ng D. P. R. Ci v. R. 56( b) ) .

"Each f act must be suppor t ed by a ci t at i on t o a speci f i c par agr aph

or page of t he summar y j udgment r ecor d. " I d. ( ci t i ng D. P. R. Ci v.

R. 56( e) ) . A par t y opposi ng a mot i on f or summary j udgment must

-21-


22/24

submi t a st atement count er i ng t he movant ' s s t atement of undi sput ed

f act s; t hi s count er - st at ement " ' shal l admi t , deny or qual i f y t he

f act s by r ef erence t o each numbered paragr aph of t he movi ng part y' s

st at ement of mat er i al f act s and unl ess a f act i s admi t t ed, shal l

suppor t each deni al or qual i f i cat i on by a r ecor d ci t at i on. ' " I d.

at 131 ( quot i ng D. P. R. Ci v. R. 56( c) ) . "Proper l y suppor t ed f act s

cont ai ned i n a[ ] [ st at ement of undi sput ed f act s] shal l be deemed

admi t t ed unl ess cont r over t ed i n t he manner pr escr i bed by t he l ocal

rul e. " I d. ( ci t i ng D. P. R. Ci v. R. 56( e) ) .

Ant i - f er r et r ul es ar e i nt ended t o r educe t he bur den on

t r i al cour t s and "pr event par t i es f r om unf ai r l y shi f t i ng t he

bur dens of l i t i gat i on t o t he cour t . " Cabn Her nndez v. Phi l i p

Mor r i s USA, I nc. , 486 F. 3d 1, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . When t he

nonmovant f ai l s t o compl y wi t h t he st andar ds of Local Rul e 56, "a

di str i ct cour t i s f r ee, i n t he exer ci se of i t s sound di scr et i on, t o

accept t he movi ng par t y' s f act s as st at ed. " I d. at 7. I n such a

si t uat i on, "t he di st r i ct cour t must st i l l appl y the st andar d

ar t i cul at ed i n Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 56. " P. R. Am. I ns.

Co. , 603 F. 3d at 130. We t hen r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der

appl yi ng Local Rul e 56 f or an abuse of di scr et i on, gi vi ng a

"speci al degr ee of def er ence" t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

i nt er pr et at i on of i t s own l ocal r ul es. I d.

At t he out set , we not e t hat t hi s i ssue i s moot wi t h

r espect t o many, i f not al l , of t he f act s pr oposed by AFC i n i t s

-22-


23/24

opposi t i on t o GE' s mot i on f or summary j udgment , because t he

di st r i ct cour t act ual l y consi der ed t hose same pr oposed f act s.

I ndeed, i n r ul i ng on bot h par t i es' cr oss- mot i ons f or summar y

j udgment , t he di st r i ct cour t expl i ci t l y st at ed t hat i t consi der ed

t he st at ement of f act s i n AFC' s own mot i on f or par t i al summar y

j udgment , and t her e was si gni f i cant over l ap between AFC' s t wo

st at ement s of f act s ( one of whi ch was di sr egar ded, and t he ot her of

whi ch was dul y consi der ed) . Thus, al t hough t he cour t st at ed t hat

i t woul d di sr egar d por t i ons of AFC' s opposi ng st at ement of mat er i al

f act s, i t nonet hel ess consi der ed t hose same f act s as t hey wer e

pr esent ed i n AFC' s own mot i on f or summary j udgment . Ar guabl y, t he

di st r i ct cour t consi der ed most , i f not al l , of t he f act s t hat AFC

now compl ai ns were err oneousl y st r i cken. AFC has f ai l ed on appeal

t o poi nt us t o a si ngl e f act t hat was act ual l y not consi der ed by

t he di st r i ct cour t and t hat woul d be mat er i al t o a quest i on

necessar y f or t he r esol ut i on of t hi s mat t er .

Revi ewi ng t he r ecor d and t he par t i es' submi ssi ons, and

gi vi ng a "speci al degr ee of def er ence" t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

i nt er pr et at i on of i t s own r ul es, we f i nd no abuse of di scret i on i n

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s appl i cat i on of Local Rul e 56. See P. R. Am.

I ns. Co. , 603 F. 3d at 130. Ther ef or e, we f i nd AFC' s ar gument s

r egar di ng t he di st r i ct cour t ' s appl i cat i on of Local Rul e 56 t o be

unavai l i ng.

-23-


24/24

IV. Conclusion

For t he f oregoi ng r easons, we concl ude that AFC has

pr esent ed no competent evi dence showi ng a genui ne i ssue of mater i al

f act as t o any wr ongf ul conduct on t he par t of GE i n negot i at i ng.

I t was nei t her "ar bi t r ar y" nor "unj ust i f i ed" f or GE t o wi t hdr aw

f r ompr econt r act ual negot i at i ons af t er t he sampl e par t s provi ded by

AFC f ai l ed mul t i pl e qual i t y eval uat i ons and t est s. Fur t her mor e,

t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scret i on i n sanct i oni ng AFC

f or f ai l i ng t o compl y wi t h t he cour t ' s l ocal r ul es. Accor di ngl y,

summary j udgment i n f avor of Def endant s- Appel l ees was pr oper , and

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on i s af f i r med.

AFFIRMED.

-24-

Advanced Flexible Circuits v. GE Sensing & Inspection, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents

Transcript of Advanced Flexible Circuits v. GE Sensing & Inspection, 1st Cir. (2015)