Wallkill 5 Associates II v. Tectonic Engineering, P.C.
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
1997 WL 452252 (1997)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Through a predecessor in interest, Wallkill 5 Associates II (Wallkill) (plaintiff), a New Jersey partnership, retained Tectonic Engineering, P.C. (Tectonic) (defendant), a New York corporation, to conduct geotechnical tests and prepare a formal report regarding land that Wallkill was considering purchasing for commercial development. Tectonic’s report indicated that the land would be suitable for development after the application of certain remedial measures. Wallkill bought the property and hired Walter Poppe General Contractors, Inc. (Poppe), a New Jersey corporation, to develop the land and construct a warehouse on it. Poppe found that certain areas of the property required more remediation than set forth in Tectonic’s report. As a result, Wallkill incurred significantly higher costs than anticipated to develop the property. Wallkill sued Tectonic in a New Jersey federal court, alleging breaches of performance, contract, warranties, and professional care. Wallkill did not sue Poppe. Tectonic moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to join an indispensable party. Tectonic also moved, in the event its motions to dismiss were denied, for (1) a transfer of venue and (2) that Poppe be joined as a third-party defendant on the ground that Poppe’s own conduct created the newly discovered problems with the property.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wolin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
