Media Glow Digital, LLC v. Panasonic Corporation of North America

Background

The dispute concerns the design, fabrication, and installation of an LED sign in New York’s Times Square. Media Glow Digital, LLC entered an agreement to build and operate the sign on the façade of the Millenium Broadway Hotel and then contracted with Panasonic Corporation of North America to purchase and install it. Panasonic subcontracted the design, construction, and installation to ICON Architectural Group, LLC, ICON Architectural Group, PLLC, and ICON HD, LLC, collectively called “ICON.”

The sign was incompatible with air rights, and Plaintiffs abandoned the project in early 2014. Times Square LED, LLC later contracted with Panasonic to repurpose the sign for another hotel. The sign was installed, but the opinion states that there were problems with the timeliness of installation and with its functionality.

Earlier rulings

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint asserted claims including breach of contract, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, and professional malpractice. Panasonic also asserted a breach-of-contract counterclaim against Times Square LED.

Magistrate Judge Pitman recommended granting ICON summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract and negligent-misrepresentation claims, while denying summary judgment on the negligence and professional-malpractice claims. Judge Keenan later granted ICON summary judgment on the breach-of-contract, negligence, professional-malpractice, and negligent-misrepresentation claims. After Plaintiffs sought reconsideration, Judge Keenan again granted ICON summary judgment on the professional-malpractice claim but vacated the earlier ruling on the negligence claim and denied ICON summary judgment on that claim. The remaining claims included Plaintiffs’ negligence claim against ICON.

ICON’s motion

ICON sought reconsideration of Judge Keenan’s decision allowing the negligence claim to proceed. ICON argued that the negligence claim was the same as the professional-malpractice claim and should have been dismissed because Plaintiffs lacked the required expert testimony. In the alternative, ICON argued that the negligence claim was actually negligent misrepresentation, which had already been dismissed, and that Plaintiffs had not pleaded facts supporting a separate negligence claim.

A motion for reconsideration is an exceptional request asking a court to revisit an earlier ruling. Under the Southern District of New York’s Local Rule 6.3, reconsideration generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious injustice. It cannot be used to present new arguments or relitigate issues already decided.

Court’s analysis

The court distinguished simple negligence from professional malpractice. Although the claims involve related negligence concepts, professional-malpractice claims may require proof of accepted professional standards through expert testimony. By contrast, simple negligence may proceed without expert testimony when specialized knowledge is not needed to decide whether the defendant used reasonable care.

The court concluded that Judge Keenan’s finding that Plaintiffs lacked expert testimony for their professional-malpractice claim did not require dismissal of the separate simple-negligence claim. The court also found genuine disputes of material fact concerning the functional equivalent of privity, including whether ICON knew the sign was being manufactured for Plaintiffs’ benefit, whether Plaintiffs relied on ICON’s services, and whether ICON communicated with Plaintiffs about the project.

The court further concluded that the negligence claim was based on specific alleged acts and omissions, including ICON’s handling of permit applications and air-space measurements, rather than on estimated completion dates. Therefore, the earlier dismissal of the negligent-misrepresentation claim did not require dismissal of the negligence claim. The court stated that issues concerning delays, responsibility for air-space measurements, permit applications, and whether the sign functioned properly could potentially be resolved by a jury without expert testimony.

Disposition

The court denied ICON’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion. The opinion states that the case was scheduled for trial on May 18, 2020.