Prolite Building Supply, LLC v. M.W. Manufacturers, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-window manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment in state-court action by plaintiffs-window supplier and certain homeowners (that had been removed to federal court), alleging that defendant breached service agreement that required plaintiff to make repairs for defendant’s windows installed in homeowners’ homes in exchange for plaintiff getting 3 percent discount on purchase of defendant’s windows, as well as defendant’s promise to supply needed repair parts at no cost. Record showed that plaintiff-window supplier received discounts and parts, and Ct. rejected plaintiffs’ claim that defendant should have either reinstalled or replaced defective windows, since applicable contract did not call for such a remedy. However, Dist. Ct. should not have entertained homeowners’ breach of warranty claims since: (1) no homeowner satisfied $75,000 amount in controversy requirement to support removal of their claims to Dist. Ct.; and (2) homeowners’ warranty claims were not sufficiently similar to plaintiff-window supplier’s contractual claim against defendant (that did satisfy all requirements for removal jurisdiction) to qualify for federal court consideration under supplemental jurisdiction. Moreover, under section 28 USC section 1441(c), there is no jurisdictional obstacle to removing whole lawsuit and then sending homeowner’s claims back to state court.