Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CITY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS v. VEHICLE INSPECTION SYSTEMS

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois


January 26, 2004.

CITY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS, INC., Plaintiff
v.
VEHICLE INSPECTION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MILTON SHADUR, Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Shortly after removing this action from the Circuit Court of Cook County to this District Court, Vehicle Inspections Systems, Inc. ("Vehicle Inspection") has noticed up a Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Complaint brought against it by City International Trucks, Inc. ("City International"). But because the motion misperceives the basic concepts of such a facial challenge, it is denied out of hand, without requiring either a response from City International or anyone's appearance at the specified January 30, 2004 presentment date.

Vehicle Inspection charges that the asserted contract on which City International sues — an agreement by Vehicle Inspection, as the seller of certain vehicle diagnostic equipment, that City International has an option to require its repurchase by Vehicle Inspection — violates the statute of frauds (UCC § 2-201(1), found in the Illinois statutes at 810 ILCS 5/2-201(1)). But even on the arguendo premise that the alleged agreement is one for the "sale of goods" within the meaning of Page 2 that statute,*fn1 Vehicle Inspection's position would require this Court to go outside of the Complaint to determine that the contract is not in writing (if that were so, of course).

  That does violence to the basic principles underlying Rule 12(b)(6). Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513-14 (2002) has reconfirmed the propriety of notice pleading such as that in the Complaint, and Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) has reconfirmed the test for the sufficiency of a complaint:

A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).
  Accordingly, as stated at the outset, Vehicle Inspection's motion is denied. This Court's previously scheduled initial status hearing date of February 13, 2004 remains in effect, and the parties are expected to comply with the prehearing requirements of the memorandum order that established that date.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.