Summary judgment in favor of BE&K is granted as to these work orders.These work orders do not carry any of the hallmarks of purchase orders governed by the Construction Agreement. The motion is granted and the permanent injunction entered.RKT CP is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Norcross, Georgia. It is hardly surprising, and does not give rise to an ambiguity, for the parties to have deployed the Engineering Agreement consistent with its plain meaning.To regulate when the Construction Agreement applies, the Construction Agreement establishes different default rules for purchase orders issued to Kellogg itself, as opposed to purchase orders issued to Kellogg affiliates. 3 UPGRADE OCC PLANT, OCC PULPER REPLACE." According to the EEOC’s complaint, Darren Fraley was hired by Smurfit-Stone as a third shift production supervisor on August 25, 2008. Rocktenn Cp, LLC is a Georgia Foreign Limited-Liability Company filed on June 13, 2011.
14, Work Order No. Given the Rock-Tenn Defendants' arguments about factual ambiguity and multiple contracts, the obvious question to be litigated was the degree to which the counts arose out of or related to the Engineering Agreement.Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment.For the construction phase, RKT CP and SW&B did not contract directly with each other. John T. Dorsey, Martin S. Lessner, Mary F. Dugan, Emily V. Burton, YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; C. Walker Ingraham, Anna R. Palmer, Rebecca Woods, Sara M. LeClerc, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Attorneys for Defendants RockTenn CP, LLC and Rock-Tenn Shared Services, LLC.On August 23, 2013, BE&K filed suit in this court against RKT CP and RKT SS (jointly, the "Rock-Tenn Defendants") seeking an injunction preventing them from asserting claims arising under the Engineering Agreement outside of Delaware in violation of the Delaware Forum Clause. Instead, the Rock-Tenn corporate family used as its counterparty RKT SS, a Georgia limited liability company with its principal place of business in Norcross, Georgia. The Engineering Agreement defines RKT CP as the "OWNER" and BE&K as the "ENGINEER." 1 was amended by Work Order No. A. Because the agreement governs engineering services, this decision refers to it as the "Engineering Agreement" or "EA." It does not specifically reference the Construction Agreement, and it does not resemble the package of Transaction Documents called for under the Construction Agreement.BE&K has moved for partial summary judgment declaring that the Delaware agreement governs the engineering work it provided on the project. RKT CP decided to hire non-party SW&B Construction Company, LLC ("SW&B"). This decision therefore describes the theories in terms of those pleadings.The work order titled "Pulp Mill Upgrade WO #2 BE&K Field Engineering—Pulp" does not carry any of the hallmarks of a purchase order governed by the Construction Agreement. 2 - OCC UPGRADE PER HDG-0410-11-00002," it is not possible to grant summary judgment as to the underlying work orders titled "BE AND K ENGINEERING - PULPER ENGINEERING - $371k - 3000 HOURS," Work Order No.
Leaving aside that this new position conflicts with their judicial admissions, the Rock-Tenn Defendants' argument is contrary to the plain meaning of the Engineering Agreement.Once again, Section 1.2 of the Engineering Agreement provides the operative language:BE&K Work Order No. 14, Work Order No. None specifically reference the Construction Agreement, and none resemble the package of Transaction Documents that is called for under the Construction Agreement.The work order titled "#4 & #5 Paper Machine Upgrade WO #3 BE&K Field Engineering" does not carry any of the hallmarks of a purchase order governed by the Construction Agreement. 21.