Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Aart Dykhuizen and Central MacHine Inc. v. Tsugami Corp. And Rem Sales, Inc.
Citations: 89 F.3d 849; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 34992; 1996 WL 294086Docket: 95-4112
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; June 4, 1996; Federal Appellate Court
Plaintiffs-Appellants Aart Dykhuizen and Central Machine, Inc. appealed the district court's dismissal of their complaint against Defendants-Appellees Tsugami Corp. and REM Sales, Inc. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. The court determined that the plaintiffs' claims, whether for breach of warranty or breach of contract, fell under Utah's Uniform Commercial Code regarding the sale of goods and were thus subject to a four-year statute of limitations. This statute, found in Utah Code Ann. 70A-2-725, was controlling over any general limitations period. Additionally, REM Sales filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction since claims against another defendant, Alta Machine Tool, were still pending. The appellate court found this motion meritless, referencing the precedent in Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp. to clarify that unresolved claims against unserved defendants do not impede appellate jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal and dismissed REM Sales's motion, noting that the order and judgment do not serve as binding precedent except under specific legal doctrines. The court also reiterated the disfavor of citing unpublished opinions, while allowing for citation under certain conditions.