Getrag KG v. Walbridge Aldinger Company - 8/26/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  August 26, 2014 
1:30 PM  EST

1:30 p.m. 80A02-1310-CC-860. Getrag Getriebe-und Zahnradfabrik Hermann Hagenmeyer GMBH & CIE KG and Getrag International GMBH (collectively, “Getrag KG”) bring this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss the complaint of Walbridge Aldinger Company (“Walbridge”) pursuant to Indiana Trial Rules 12(B)(2) and 12(B)(5).  Getrag KG is a German limited partnership with its principal place of business in Germany and Walbridge is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan.  According to Walbridge’s complaint, Getrag KG is a leading manufacturer of dual-clutch transmissions, and in 2006 Getrag KG and Chrysler Group LLC agreed to jointly develop a manufacturing plant in Tipton for the purpose of manufacturing dual-clutch transmissions for Chrysler automobiles.  Walbridge alleges that Getrag KG hired it to construct this plant, but, in late 2008, Getrag KG ordered Walbridge to stop construction and refused to pay Walbridge more than $35 million in expenses that Walbridge had incurred.  Attached to Walbridge’s complaint were numerous purchase orders, each of which states that the parties shall abide by certain terms and conditions.  Among these terms and conditions is a requirement that any disputes between the parties be resolved in Germany and pursuant to German law.  As such, Getrag KG moved to dismiss Walbridge’s complaint.  The trial court denied Getrag KG’s motion pursuant to Indiana Code Section 32-28-3-17, which declares “void” any “provision in a contract for the improvement of real estate in Indiana” that “makes the contract subject to the laws of another state” or “requires litigation . . . on the contract occur in another state.”  On appeal, Getrag KG asserts that the terms and conditions are binding under Indiana law, that Indiana Code Section 32-28-3-17 does not apply on these facts, and that, if it did apply, the statute would be preempted by the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany.

Back to Events
Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT