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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?