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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT