Ademco Inc. v. TWS Technology LTD

Background

Ademco Inc., doing business as Resideo, sued TWS Technology Ltd. and TWS Technology LLC over battery packs that Resideo purchased from TWS Technology Ltd. for use in alarm systems that Resideo manufactured and sold to a third party. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and negligent misrepresentation.

The case was originally filed in New York State Supreme Court and was removed to the Southern District of New York on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The opinion states that TWS Technology Ltd. is a Hong Kong limited company with its principal place of business in Hong Kong, and that TWS Technology LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation whose sole member is TWS Technology Ltd.

The defendants argued that the complaint improperly grouped the two defendants together without identifying which one was responsible for particular conduct. They also argued that the complaint did not adequately plead personal jurisdiction over TWS Technology LLC, a contractual relationship between that company and Resideo, timely notice of alleged contract or warranty breaches, or the required elements of negligent misrepresentation. Those arguments were made in a pending motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), concerning personal jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), concerning whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Motion and ruling

The defendants moved to postpone the initial pretrial conference and related deadlines until the motion to dismiss was fully briefed. Resideo did not consent to the request and opposed the postponement.

The court granted the defendants’ motion. It postponed the pretrial conference until after the motion to dismiss is fully briefed and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 12. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of Resideo’s claims. It also advised Resideo that, if it chose not to amend its pleadings to respond timely to an argument raised in the motion to dismiss, the court was unlikely to grant permission to amend later to fix defects made apparent by the briefing.

Effect of the order

The initial pretrial conference and related deadlines will not proceed on the previously scheduled timetable. The case remains subject to the pending motion to dismiss, which was not resolved by this order.