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.

Turfworthy, LLC v. Dr. Karl Wetekam & Co. KG

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina

June 17, 2014

TURFWORTHY, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. KARL WETEKAM & CO. KG, Defendant

Page 497

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 498

For TURFWORTHY, LLC, Plaintiff: ROBERT C. CONE, LEAD ATTORNEY, BRANDY L. MILLS, TUGGLE DUGGINS P.A., GREENSBORO, NC.

For DR. KARL WETEKAM & CO. KG, Defendant: ALLEN TODD SPRINKLE, MICHAEL GEORGE ADAMS, PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, CHARLOTTE, NC; JASON R. BENTON, PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP, CHARLOTTE, NC.

Page 499

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

James A. Beaty, Jr., United States District Judge.

This matter is currently before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #14] for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The factual allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. #4], taken as true for purposes of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, allege that Plaintiff Turfworthy LLC (" Plaintiff" ) is a North Carolina limited liability company with its principal office and place of business in Greensboro, North Carolina, and Defendant Karl Wetekam & Co. KG (" Defendant" ) is a business association with its principal office and place of business in Germany. Defendant manufactures monofilament yarn for use in the manufacture of artificial turf and began supplying Plaintiff with various types of monofilament yarn in 2010. Plaintiff used the yarn as the principal raw material for the manufacture of artificial turf, which Plaintiff then sold to its customers. In addition to providing yarn used to make general landscaping artificial turf, Defendant also provided yarn for the specific purpose of a project commissioned by the Pittsburgh Pirates. Through a series of purchase orders, confirmations, and email correspondence, Plaintiff and Defendant agreed upon various specifications for the yarn Defendant sold to Plaintiff. Furthermore, Defendant expressly warranted to

Page 500

Plaintiff that the yarn it supplied would be of good quality and would meet the agreed upon specifications.

Beginning in April 2012, Plaintiff discovered that much of the yarn supplied by Defendant was defective. These defects were latent in nature, and therefore, could not be discovered until the yarn was manufactured into artificial turf. Because of the defects in the yarn, Plaintiff is at risk for claims of breach of warranty and/or breach of contract from Plaintiff's customers who bought artificial turf products that were made using the defective yarn from Defendant. Furthermore, Plaintiff is unable to use any of the yarn provided by Defendant which remains in Plaintiff's inventory.

When Plaintiff discovered the defects, it notified Defendant in writing of the problems, and provided several additional notices in the months thereafter. However, Defendant took no action to provide a remedy for the defects. Finally, on November 30, 2012, Plaintiff notified Defendant that Plaintiff was entitled to return all yarn that Plaintiff still possessed and receive either the price of the yarn or a credit against sums for which the Defendant had invoiced Plaintiff. Defendant refused to correct the ...


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.