Update (March 24, 2011): Months of voluminous briefing and cross-briefing, cross-motions for summary judgment supported by declarations attaching thirty-six exhibits and thirteen exhibits, respectively. In other words, a lot of work presumably went into these motions. It must sting when the same day of the hearing on the motions, the Court’s order issues, and it is “DENIED” as to both motions.
At least the lawyers had 2 hours and 25 minutes of the Court’s time to argue the motions. Presumably the bases for the Court’s denials of their motions are clear to counsel or the parties, at least…
Original post (June 8, 2010): Apparently Walmart requires its vendors to have “vendor identification numbers” but there is something of a secondary market in these so a non-approved vendor can sell to Walmart through an approved vendor, using the approved vendor’s Walmart vendor I.D. number.
But then, when the deals goes South, is the “non-vendor vendor” held to the forum selection clause in the contract it never itself entered into (and which contract, importantly, had already expired when Plaintiff Webb started selling to Defendant Walmart)? The question was decided by U.S. District Court Judge Patrick Schiltz this week and Walmart does not get to fight this one out in Bentonville…
Judge Schiltz prefaced his decision with a helpful reminder to civil litigators on the distinction between legal standards for motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6).
Judge Schiltz did not buy Walmart’s arguments based on the expired contract’s evergreen clause, waiver, or an implied-in-fact contract and he rejected Walmart’s motion to transfer the case to Arkansas in short order.