The opinion of the court was delivered by: William J. Martini, U.S.D.J.
OPINION HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Promotion in Motion, Inc. and PIM Brands, LLC's (collectively, "PIM's") motion for reconsideration of the Court's December 20, 2011 Letter Opinion and Order (ECF Nos. 34, 35) pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). For the reasons stated below, PIM's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This matter concerns a dispute between PIM and Defendant/Counterclaimant Beech-Nut Corporation, Inc. ("Beech-Nut") over who is financially responsible for the roughly 230,000 cases of unsold Fruit Nibbles, a brand of gummy fruit snacks manufactured by PIM to be sold under the Beech-Nut brand. The Court refers to its December 20, 2011 Letter Opinion for the relevant factual background:
PIM is a manufacturer of popular snack foods. Defendant sells Beech-Nut branded foods to third parties. In late 2007, the parties began discussions about producing a toddlers' all natural gummy fruit snack called Fruit Nibbles for retail under the Beech-Nut brand. Throughout the course of their dealings, the parties anticipated signing a two-year "Co-Pack" contract to govern their relationship. However, the parties were unable to agree to certain terms, and no long-term agreement was signed.
Despite having no long-term contract in place, PIM produced a sample batch of Fruit Nibbles which met Beech-Nut's color, texture and "bite" specifications. Based on approval of that sample, PIM began mass producing Fruit Nibbles in August 2008. PIM continued production until at least November 11, 2008. Through four signed Purchase Orders dated May 9, August 5, September 8, and October 13, 2008 (the "Purchase Orders"), Beech-Nut accepted and paid for approximately 230,000 cases of Fruit Nibbles.
Several provisions of those Purchase Orders bear on this matter:
1. Entire Agreement. The terms and conditions set forth in [these orders] constitute the entire agreement between the parties . . . and supersede . . . all previous verbal or written representations, agreements and conditions [unless modified in writing and signed by all parties]. . . . .
4. Quality and Inspection. [PIM] warrants that the goods . . . furnished under the order will comply with the specifications, are fit for the purpose intended, merchantable and free from defects of material and workmanship and . . . [and upon] discovery of any defect, all rejections will be returned at [PIM's] risk and expense . . . [PIM] acknowledges and agrees that [Beech-Nut] shall be entitled to all warranties and remedies as provided by the Uniform Commercial Code ("U.C.C."). . . . .
In September 2008, Beech-Nut received its first delivery of Fruit Nibbles, which it sold to third parties. Shortly thereafter, Beech-Nut began receiving hundreds of complaints about Fruit Nibbles.
Although it is unclear exactly how widespread the problems with the shipped Fruit Nibbles were, on December 5, 2008, Beech-Nut instituted a national product withdrawal of all PIM-manufactured Fruit Nibbles.
From mid-January through February 2009, the parties discussed issues related to the product recall. Beech-Nut maintained that these problems were PIM's responsibility; PIM, in turn, denied responsibility and declined to accept Fruit Nibbles returns from Beech-Nut. The parties also discussed relaunching Fruit Nibbles in Spring 2009, but understood that any future business relationship was predicated on resolving issues related to the recall. Ultimately, the parties did not resolve those issues and failed to "reach a co-packing or other contract relating to the prospective re-launch."
(56.1 Statement ¶ 42.) On February 23, 2009, Beech-Nut advised PIM that it was going to use alternate suppliers for Fruit Nibbles. On February 27, 2009, PIM sued Beech-Nut in Superior Court, asserting claims against Beech-Nut for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and contract by estoppel. On March 21, 2011, Beech-Nut removed this action to District Court, where it asserted ...