427 F.Supp.3d 316
E.D.N.Y2019Background
- Plaintiffs Alberto and Anna Condoleo sued for injuries allegedly caused when a container header hinge fractured; defendants include Bridgehead Container Services Ltd., APL Co. PTE Ltd./American President Lines (APL), and Guangzhou Jindo Container Co., Ltd. (Guangzhou).
- Magistrate Judge Lindsay recommended granting summary judgment for Bridgehead and APL and dismissing claims against Guangzhou; plaintiffs filed general and some specific objections.
- Plaintiffs failed to show admissible proof of service on Guangzhou under the Hague Convention; only an unsworn third‑party letter was submitted regarding receipt by China’s Central Authority.
- Magistrate Judge Lindsay excluded an expert "Pope" letter as unsworn hearsay; plaintiffs later submitted a separately paginated document they claim made the report sworn, but the district court found the report itself lacked the required declaration.
- The Magistrate found plaintiffs’ breach of implied warranty claim accrued when Bridgehead relinquished the container to APL (Oct. 23, 2008), rendering the claim time‑barred; APL was treated as a lessee outside the manufacturer/seller chain and thus not liable for implied warranty of fitness.
- The Magistrate rejected plaintiffs’ attempt to invoke res ipsa loquitur against APL because the container was not under APL’s exclusive control before the accident; the district court accepted the Report in full and entered judgment for Bridgehead and APL with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service on Guangzhou under Hague Convention | Plaintiffs contend Guangzhou was served; submitted LLS letter showing Central Authority received Hague request | Defendants say no admissible proof MOJ received formal request, fee, or certificate; no affidavit of service | Guangzhou not properly served; claims dismissed for lack of service |
| Admissibility of Pope expert report | Pope report is sworn and should be considered; exclusion defeats plaintiffs’ warranty case | Report was an unsworn four‑page letter lacking 28 U.S.C. § 1746 declaration; hearsay inadmissible on summary judgment | Report remains inadmissible; exclusion affirmed |
| Breach of implied warranty accrual/statute of limitations (Bridgehead) | Plaintiffs dispute accrual date; contend Bridgehead never established delivery date | Defendants point to plaintiffs’ own Rule 56.1 admissions that APL took possession on Oct. 23, 2008 and Bridgehead put container into commerce then | Claim accrued Oct. 23, 2008; warranty claim is time‑barred |
| Implied warranty liability of APL (lessee status) | Plaintiffs argue APL can be liable | Defendants argue APL was a lessee not in the manufacturing/sale chain and cannot be liable for implied warranty of fitness | APL, as lessee outside seller/manufacturer chain, not liable for implied warranty |
| Res ipsa loquitur against APL (exclusive control) | Plaintiffs argue exclusive control is flexible; latent manufacturing defect supports inference of negligence | Defendants argue container was outside APL’s exclusive control leading up to accident; res ipsa requires control | No res ipsa inference; container was not exclusively under APL’s control |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (sets standard for district court review of magistrate reports)
- Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162 (clear‑error standard when no timely objection to magistrate’s report)
- Hynes v. Squillace, 143 F.3d 653 (courts generally disfavor allowing new evidence on de novo review)
- Morejon v. Rais Constr. Co., 7 N.Y.3d 203 (doctrine of res ipsa loquitur explained under New York law)
- Kambat v. St. Francis Hosp., 89 N.Y.2d 489 (res ipsa loquitur principles)
- Ito v. Marvin Windows of N.Y., Inc., 54 A.D.3d 1002 (lessee outside sales/manufacturing chain not liable for implied warranty of fitness)
- Quinones v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 92 A.D.3d 931 (confirming limits on implied warranty liability for non‑sellers)