## Facts

- Rocheux International of New Jersey, Inc. sold and distributed raw plastic materials, including PVC and APET.
- U.S. Merchants Financial Group, Inc. and related entities provided plastic product-packaging services and purchased plastic from Rocheux through multiple purchase orders in 2005–2006.
- Between January and June 2006, Rocheux delivered large quantities of plastic (over 7,000 rolls) and issued invoices for those shipments.
- Defendants did not pay for most or all of the 2006 deliveries and no longer possessed the delivered goods.
- Rocheux asserted an unpaid balance of $2,116,571.76 for the 2006 deliveries.
- Rocheux also maintained some goods at a local warehouse for defendants’ short-notice use between November 2005 and August 2006.
- Defendants alleged the plastic was nonconforming or defective; Rocheux disputed the factual and legal sufficiency of defendants’ notice, rejection, and revocation theories.

## Issues

1. Whether Rocheux was entitled to summary judgment on contract-based claims for the 2006 deliveries and warehouse goods under U.C.C. Article 2 as adopted in New Jersey.
2. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment based on alleged nonconformity, rejection or revocation of acceptance, and related defenses.
3. Whether affirmative defenses could be redesignated as counterclaims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(2), and whether any redesignated counterclaims should be limited in scope.
4. Whether defendants’ expert testimony should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 702 at the pretrial stage.

## Decision

- Rocheux’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and otherwise denied (including denials without prejudice as to fact-dependent matters).
- Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment was denied.
- Defendants were permitted to redesignate specified affirmative defenses as counterclaims under Rule 8(c)(2), but only as to the 2006 deliveries.
- Rocheux’s motion in limine to exclude defendants’ experts was denied without prejudice, with leave to renew after the summary-judgment rulings clarified the remaining issues.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine dispute of material fact; on cross-motions, the court evaluates each motion with inferences drawn in favor of the nonmovant.
- Under U.C.C. Article 2, nonconformity, notice of breach, acceptance, rejection, and revocation of acceptance commonly present fact-intensive questions that may preclude full summary judgment on liability or damages when the record is disputed.
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(2) permits a court to treat a misdesignated affirmative defense as a counterclaim when justice so requires; the court may limit redesignation to avoid prejudice or undue expansion of the case.
- Motions to exclude expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702 may be denied without prejudice when the relevance and scope of expert issues depend on how dispositive motions narrow the claims and defenses.

## Conclusion

The court resolved cross-motions by granting Rocheux partial summary judgment on undisputed aspects of the transactions while denying defendants summary judgment due to remaining factual disputes about nonconformity-related defenses and resulting damages; it permitted limited counterclaims tied to the 2006 deliveries and postponed definitive expert-admissibility rulings by denying the Rule 702 motion without prejudice.


Rocheux Int’l of N.J., Inc. v. U.S. Merchants Fin. Grp., Inc., 741 F. Supp. 2d 651 (D.N.J. 2010)