MidAmerica C2L Incorporated v. Siemens Energy, Inc.

Summary

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Siemens on claims of anticipatory repudiation, breach of implied warranty, fraud, and rescission, holding that the district court properly excluded the plaintiff's expert under Daubert for relying on an unreliable ipse dixit methodology and failing to account for alternative causes. The court also upheld the denial of leave to amend under Rule 16(b)(4) for lack of good cause, and affirmed the exclusion of evidence at trial regarding unpled affirmative defenses, finding no material breach under New York law where the contract imposed no deadline for notice of improvements and the plaintiff had already breached by missing payments. Key topics include Daubert reliability, Rule 16 good cause, independent tort doctrine under Florida law, and material breach standards.

Holdings

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion because Dr. Kosstrin's methodology was unreliable; he failed to adequately consider alternative causes and his opinion was based on ipse dixit.
2. The district court's grant of summary judgment was affirmed on alternative grounds. Although the district court erred in requiring expert testimony to prove a defect in contract-based actions under Florida law, summary judgment was proper because: (1) Secure's anticipatory repudiation claim failed for lack of causation and inability to perform; (2) the breach of implied warranty claim was barred by contractual disclaimer; (3) the fraud claims were barred by the independent tort doctrine; and (4) the recission claim was not recognized under Florida law.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion because Secure failed to show good cause under Rule 16(b)(4) for the belated amendments, as the facts were available before the deadline and Secure did not act diligently.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion because the defense was not properly pled, Secure failed to provide notice, and the alleged breach was not material as a matter of law under New York law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of Secure's expert, Dr. Herbert Kosstrin.
2. Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Siemens on Secure's claims.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Secure's motions for leave to amend its complaint.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding evidence at trial and denying Secure's motion for a new trial.

Disposition

affirmed