Lite Cookies Limited, Inc. v. Tassy & Associates, Inc., 1:08-cv-01172

Lite Cookies contracted with Tassy & Associates to repair a damaged oven; the contract included a 90-day warranty on workmanship and equipment.
Repairs were performed both at Plaintiff's New Mexico factory and Defendant's Illinois shop; post-repair, the oven still failed to meet FDA cookie specifications.
The oven caused production issues; Plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract, NM UPA violations, and professional negligence.
The oven remained nonfunctional for over a year before it was finally operable; litigation spanned nearly three years.
The court has diversity jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1332, with Plaintiff's factories in NM and FL and Defendant based in IL; amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Defendant moved for summary judgment on all counts; the court denied in part and granted in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of contract with punitive damages	Lite alleges breach by not restoring operation.	Labor not covered by warranty; only parts.	Genuine issue of material fact on breach and punitive damages remains.
Deceptive representations about repair time under UPA § 57-12-2(D)(4)	Defendant misrepresented repair timeline.	Delay due to unforeseen problems; estimate was not knowingly false.	Summary judgment granted for this element.
Misrepresentations about services and engineer qualifications under UPA § 57-12-2(D)(5)	Tassy’s engineer status misrepresented the services offered.	No knowing misrepresentation; industry terminology used.	Summary judgment in favor of Defendant for this element.
Professional negligence and standard of care	Expert opinions show failure to meet professional standard.	No definitive breach of professional standard without sufficient evidence.	Count IV denial of summary judgment; material fact issue remains.

Eck v. Parke, Davis & Co., 256 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2001) (summary-judgment standard; inference of essential elements required)
Saylor v. Valles, 63 P.3d 1152 (N.M. App. 2002) (negligent misrepresentation elements; reliance and intent)
Guidance Endodontics, LLC v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 749 F.Supp.2d 1235 (D.N.M. 2010) (UPA claims require knowingly misleading conduct)
Adobe Masters, Inc. v. Downey, 883 P.2d 133 (N.M. 1994) (professional negligence standard requires expert testimony)
New Mexico Pub. Schs. Ins. Authority v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 198 P.3d 342 (N.M. 2008) (standard of care for professionals; expert necessity)
Woodbury Chemical Co. v. Holgerson, 439 F.2d 1052 (10th Cir. 1971) (existence of federal specifications viewed as evidence of warranties)