throbber
FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021-00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`STATE OF NEW YORK
`
`SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
`
`
`GREAT LAKES CHEESE CO., INC.; and
`
`GREAT LAKES CHEESE OF NEW YORK, INC.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`Index No.
`
`CARGILL, INCORPORATED;
`G & L TRUCKING, INC.; and
`
`KUHNLE BROTHERS, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs Great Lakes Cheese Co., Inc. and Great Lakes Cheese of New York,
`
`Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) allege for their complaint:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Great Lakes Cheese Co., Inc. (“GLC” or “Plaintiff’) is an Ohio
`
`business corporation with its principal place of business located at 17825 Great Lakes Parkway,
`
`Hiram, Ohio 44234.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Great Lakes Cheese of New York, Inc. (“GLCNY” or “Plaintiff’)
`
`is a domestic business corporation with its principal place of business located at 23 Phelps Street,
`
`Adams, New York.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, defendant Cargill, Incorporated (“Cargill”) is
`
`a foreign business corporation authorized to do business in the State of New York, with its
`
`principal place of business at 15407 McGinty Road W, Wayzata, Minnesota.
`
`10f 22
`1 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021-00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, defendant G & L Trucking, Inc. (“G&L”) is
`
`a domestic business corporation with its principal place of business at 165 Locke Road, Locke,
`
`New York.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, defendant Kuhnle Brothers, Inc. (“Kuhnle”)
`
`is a foreign business corporation authorized to do business in the State of New York, with its
`
`principal place of business at 14905 Cross Creek, Newbury, Ohio.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`6.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over Cargill because, among other reasons, this
`
`matter arises from Cargill’s transaction of business within New York and its contract to supply
`
`goods or services in New York.
`
`7.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over G&L because, among other reasons, G&L
`
`is domiciled in New York.
`
`8.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over Kuhnle because, among other reasons, this
`
`matter arises from Kuhnle’s transaction of business within New York and its contract to supply
`
`goods or services in New York.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in Jefferson County because, among other reasons, a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Jefferson
`
`County.
`
`Factual Allegations
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs own and operate a cheese production facility in Adams, New
`
`York (the “Adams facility”).
`
`20f22
`2 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021—00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`11. Within that facility is a bulk salt silo from which Plaintiffs draw food
`
`grade salt used in the manufacture of cheese products.
`
`12.
`
`At all relevant times, Cargill has been engaged in the business of
`
`manufacturing, distributing, and selling salt and salt products in the State of New York.
`
`13.
`
`At all relevant times, Cargill was the exclusive supplier of food grade salt
`
`used at the Adams facility.
`
`14.
`
`At all relevant times, Kuhnle was engaged in the business of hauling bulk
`
`loads in the State of New York.
`
`15.
`
`At all relevant times, G&L was engaged in the business of hauling bulk
`
`loads in the State of New York.
`
`The January 2020 Incident
`
`16.
`
`As of January 20, 2020, the salt silo at the Adams facility contained salt
`
`supplied exclusively by Cargill.
`
`17.
`
`Under the terms of Plaintiffs’ agreement with Cargill, Cargill was required
`
`to arrange and pay for shipment of that salt free on board to the Adams facility.
`
`18.
`
`The materials present in the salt silo at the Adams facility as of January
`
`20, 2020 were delivered and deposited there exclusively by G&L.
`
`19.
`
`On or about January 20, 2020, Plaintiffs contracted with Cargill for the
`
`supply of approximately 46,022 pounds of food grade salt to the Adams facility (hereafter the
`
`30f 22
`3 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021-00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`“January salt order”)(the existing salt and January salt order collectively the “salt involved in the
`
`January incident”).
`
`20.
`
`Under the terms of the parties’ agreement, Cargill was required to arrange
`
`and pay for shipment of the January salt order free on board to the Adams facility.
`
`21.
`
`Cargill retained Kuhnle to transport the January salt order from Cargill’s
`
`facility to the Adams facility.
`
`22.
`
`Upon information and belief, Cargill required G&L and Kuhnle to certify
`
`that their trucks were clean and sanitized for food grade materials before being loaded with salt
`
`orders at Cargill’s facility.
`
`23.
`
`Upon information and belief, Cargill directed or controlled the manner and
`
`method in which G&L and Kuhnle cleaned and sanitized their trucks before being loaded with
`
`salt orders at Cargill’s facility.
`
`24.
`
`Upon information and belief, Cargill inspected and/or approved the
`
`condition of G&L and Kuhnle’s trucks before they were loaded with salt orders at Cargill’s
`
`facility.
`
`25.
`
`Upon information and belief, Cargill directed or controlled the manner and
`
`method in which G&L and Kuhnle loaded their trucks with salt orders at Cargill’s facility.
`
`26.
`
`Upon information and belief, Cargill inspected and/or approved the
`
`condition of G&L’s and Kuhnle’s trucks after they were loaded with salt orders at Cargill’s
`
`facility.
`
`4of22
`4 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021—00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`27.
`
`On or about January 20, 2020, Kuhnle transported the January salt order
`
`from Cargill’s facility to the Adams facility, and deposited the January salt order into the salt silo
`
`at the Adams facility.
`
`28.
`
`Other than providing access to the deposit port, Plaintiffs did not control
`
`or participate in the manufacture, loading, transportation, or deposit of the salt existing in the
`
`Adams facility silo before delivery of the January salt order.
`
`29.
`
`Other than providing access to the deposit port, Plaintiffs did not control
`
`or participate in the manufacture, loading, transportation, or deposit of the January salt order into
`
`the Adams facility silo.
`
`30.
`
`On or about January 21 and 22, 2020, after Kuhnle deposited the January
`
`salt order into the Adams facility silo, Plaintiffs discovered rocks and/or pebbles on the Adams
`
`facility salt belt, in its salt auger, and in the salt flow as the bulk salt tank was emptied from salt
`
`distribution.
`
`31.
`
`Upon information and belief, the existing salt in the salt silo before
`
`delivery of the January salt order was contaminated with the rocks.
`
`32.
`
`In the alternative, upon information and belief, the January salt order was
`
`contaminated with the rocks at the time it was loaded into Kuhnle’s truck.
`
`33.
`
`In the alternative, the January salt order became contaminated with the
`
`rocks at the time it was loaded into Kuhnle’s truck.
`
`50f 22
`5 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021-00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`34.
`
`In the alternative, the January salt order became contaminated with the
`
`rocks between the time it was loaded into Kuhnle’s truck and the time it was deposited in the
`
`Adams facility salt silo.
`
`35.
`
`The salt existing in the Adams facility salt silo before delivery of the
`
`January salt order became contaminated with the rocks through the acts or omissions of Cargill,
`
`before it was finally deposited into the Adams facility salt silo.
`
`36.
`
`The salt existing in the Adams facility salt silo before delivery of the
`
`January salt order became contaminated with the rocks through the acts or omissions of G&L,
`
`before it was finally deposited into the Adams facility salt silo.
`
`37.
`
`The January salt order became contaminated with the rocks through the
`
`acts or omissions of Cargill, before the salt was finally deposited into the Adams facility salt silo.
`
`38.
`
`The January salt order became contaminated with the rocks through the
`
`acts or omissions of Kuhnle, before the salt was finally deposited into the Adams facility salt
`
`silo.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiffs’ acts or omissions did not cause any contamination of the salt
`
`existing in the Adams facility salt silo before delivery of the January salt order.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiffs’ acts or omissions did not cause any contamination of January
`
`salt order before or after delivery of the January salt order.
`
`60f 22
`6 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021-00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`41.
`
`Because Cargill, G&L, and Kuhnle were collectively in exclusive control
`
`of the salt involved in the January incident at all relevant times, their culpable conduct in causing
`
`the contamination can be presumed under the theory of res ipsa loquitur.
`
`42.
`
`The presence of the rocks contaminated Plaintiffs’ manufacturing process
`
`and caused significant adulteration, diminution, and complete loss in value of Plaintiffs’ finished
`
`cheese products.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiffs have been and will be required to undertake costs of determining
`
`whether any finished product contaminated by the rocks is salvageable.
`
`44.
`
`If any of the finished product contaminated by the rocks is salvageable,
`
`Plaintiffs will be required to undertake the cost of transporting, storing, processing and selling
`
`that product at a reduced price as “processed” cheese, all to Plaintiffs’ damage.
`
`45.
`
`If required to dispose of any or all the finished cheese product
`
`contaminated by the rocks, Plaintiffs will suffer a complete loss in value of that product, and will
`
`also incur labor, transportation, and disposal costs for the disposition of the product, all to
`
`Plaintiffs’ damage.
`
`46.
`
`On or about March 11, 2020, Plaintiffs submitted a formal claim for losses
`
`to Cargill, demanding that Cargill compensate them for the damages sustained as a result of the
`
`contamination in January.
`
`47.
`
`To date, Cargill has refused to compensate Plaintiffs for their damages.
`
`7of22
`7 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021-00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`The August 2020 Incident
`
`48.
`
`As of August 26, 2020, the salt silo at the Adams facility contained salt
`
`supplied exclusively by Cargill.
`
`49.
`
`Under the terms of Plaintiffs’ agreement with Cargill, Cargill was required
`
`to arrange and pay for shipment of that salt free on board to the Adams facility.
`
`50.
`
`The materials present in the salt silo at the Adams facility as of August 26,
`
`2020 were delivered and deposited there exclusively by G&L.
`
`51.
`
`On or about August 26, 2020, Plaintiffs contracted with Cargill for the
`
`supply of approximately 50,014 pounds of food grade salt to the Adams facility (hereafter the
`
`“August salt order”)(the existing salt and August salt order collectively the “salt involved in the
`
`August incident”).
`
`52.
`
`Under the terms of the parties’ agreement, Cargill was required to arrange
`
`for and pay for shipment of the August salt order free on board to the Adams facility.
`
`53.
`
`Cargill retained G&L to transport the August salt order from Cargill’s
`
`facility to the Adams facility.
`
`54.
`
`Upon information and belief, Cargill required G&L to certify that its truck
`
`was clean and sanitized for food grade materials before being loaded with salt orders at Cargill’s
`
`facility.
`
`55.
`
`Upon information and belief, Cargill directed or controlled the manner and
`
`method in which G&L cleaned and sanitized its truck before being loaded salt orders at Cargill’s
`
`facility.
`
`80f 22
`8 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021-00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`56.
`
`Upon information and belief, Cargill inspected and/or approved the
`
`condition of G&L’s truck before it was loaded with salt orders at Cargill’s facility.
`
`57.
`
`Upon information and belief, Cargill directed or controlled the manner and
`
`method in which G&L loaded its truck with salt orders at Cargill’s facility.
`
`58.
`
`Upon information and belief, Cargill inspected and/or approved the
`
`condition of G&L’s truck after it was loaded with salt orders at Cargill’s facility.
`
`59.
`
`On or about August 27, 2020, G&L transported the August salt order from
`
`Cargill’s facility to the Adams facility, and deposited the August salt order into the salt silo at the
`
`Adams facility.
`
`60.
`
`Other than providing access to the deposit port, Plaintiffs did not control
`
`or participate in the manufacture, loading, transportation, or deposit of the salt existing in the
`
`Adams facility silo before delivery of the August salt order.
`
`61.
`
`Other than providing access to the deposit port, Plaintiffs did not control
`
`or participate in the manufacture, loading, transportation, or deposit of the August salt order into
`
`the Adams facility silo.
`
`62.
`
`On or about August 27, 2020, after G&L deposited the August salt order
`
`into the Adams facility silo, Plaintiffs discovered large crystals of salt, a mixture of regular salt
`
`and large pieces of rock salt, plugging up salt hoppers and salt lines.
`
`63.
`
`Upon information and belief, the existing salt in the salt silo before
`
`delivery of the August salt order was contaminated with rock salt.
`
`90f 22
`9 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021-00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`64.
`
`In the alternative, upon information and belief, the August salt order was
`
`contaminated with rock salt or otherwise non-food grade salt at the time it was loaded into
`
`G&L’s truck.
`
`65.
`
`In the alternative, upon information and belief, the August salt order
`
`became contaminated with rock salt or otherwise non-food grade salt at the time it was loaded
`
`into G&L’s truck, or between that time and the time it was deposited in the Adams facility salt
`
`silo.
`
`66.
`
`The salt existing in the Adams facility salt silo before delivery of the
`
`August salt order became contaminated with rock salt or otherwise non-food grade salt through
`
`the acts or omissions of Cargill, before it was finally deposited into the Adams facility salt silo.
`
`67.
`
`The salt existing in the Adams facility salt silo before delivery of the
`
`August salt order became contaminated with rock salt or otherwise non-food grade salt through
`
`the acts or omissions of G&L, before it was finally deposited into the Adams facility salt silo.
`
`68.
`
`The August salt order became contaminated with rock salt or otherwise
`
`non-food grade salt through the acts or omissions of Cargill, before the salt was finally deposited
`
`into the Adams facility salt silo.
`
`69.
`
`The August salt order became contaminated with rock salt or otherwise
`
`non-food grade salt through the acts or omissions of G&L, before the salt was finally deposited
`
`into the Adams facility salt silo.
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiffs’ acts or omissions did not cause any contamination of the salt
`
`existing in the Adams facility salt silo before delivery of the August salt order.
`
`10 of 22
`10 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021—00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiffs’ acts or omissions did not cause any contamination of the
`
`August salt order.
`
`72.
`
`Because Cargill and G&L were collectively in exclusive control of the salt
`
`involved in the August incident at all relevant times, their culpable conduct in causing the
`
`contamination can be presumed under the theory of res ipsa loquitur.
`
`73.
`
`The presence of rock salt or otherwise non-food grade salt contaminated
`
`Plaintiffs’ manufacturing process and caused significant adulteration, diminution, and complete
`
`loss in value of Plaintiffs’ finished cheese products.
`
`74.
`
`The finished cheese product contaminated by the rock salt or otherwise
`
`non-food grade salt cannot be salvaged.
`
`75.
`
`Plaintiffs have incurred costs for storage of the finished cheese product
`
`contaminated by the rock salt or otherwise non-food grade salt pending disposition, which they
`
`would not have incurred if the product had not been contaminated.
`
`76.
`
`If required to dispose of any or all the finished cheese product
`
`contaminated by the rock salt or otherwise non-food grade salt, Plaintiffs will suffer a complete
`
`loss in value of that product, and will also incur labor, transportation, and disposal costs for the
`
`disposition of the product, all to Plaintiffs’ damage.
`
`77.
`
`On or about September 23, 2020, Plaintiffs submitted a formal claim for
`
`losses to Cargill, demanding that Cargill compensate them for the damages sustained as a result
`
`of the contamination in August.
`
`11 of 22
`11 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021-00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`78.
`
`To date, Cargill has refused to compensate Plaintiffs for their damages.
`
`(Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Against Cargill — January Incident)
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 78.
`
`80.
`
`Cargill is a merchant with respect to salt products, including without
`
`limitation food grade salt.
`
`8 l.
`
`The salt involved in the January incident supplied by Cargill to Plaintiffs
`
`was contaminated and therefore not of merchantable quality as (a) the salt did not pass without
`
`objection in the trade under the contract description; (b) the salt was not of fair or average quality
`
`within the description; (c) the salt was not fit for ordinary purposes for which the salt is used; (d)
`
`the salt did not run, within the variations permitted by the parties’ agreement, of even kind,
`
`quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and/or (e) the salt did not
`
`conform to the promises or affirrnations of fact made by Cargill.
`
`82.
`
`Cargill’s supply of the salt involved in the January incident was a breach
`
`of the implied warranty of merchantability set forth in NY. U.C.C. § 2-314.
`
`83.
`
`Cargill did not exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability.
`
`84.
`
`Plaintiffs suffered damage to their finished cheese products as a result of
`
`using the defective, adulterated, and contaminated salt supplied by Cargill.
`
`12 of 22
`12 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021—00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`85.
`
`Plaintiffs promptly, seasonably, and reasonably notified Cargill that the
`
`salt involved in the January incident was non-conforming within a reasonable time after
`
`discovery of the breach, or when a reasonable person should have discovered the breach.
`
`86.
`
`Cargill’s breach of warranty caused damage to Plaintiffs in an amount to
`
`be proven at trial, and in no event less than $1,882,503.00.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose Against Cargill —
`January Incident)
`
`87.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 86.
`
`88.
`
`Cargill knew or had reason to know that Plaintiffs intended to use the salt
`
`involved in the January incident to make food products for human consumption.
`
`89.
`
`Cargill knew or had reason to know that Plaintiffs relied on Cargill’s skill
`
`or judgment to select and/or furnish suitable goods for that purpose.
`
`90.
`
`The salt involved in the January incident was contaminated and therefore
`
`not fit for Plaintiffs’ purpose of making food products for human consumption.
`
`91.
`
`Cargill’s supply of the salt involved in the January incident was a breach
`
`of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose set forth in NY. U.C.C. § 2-315.
`
`92.
`
`Cargill did not exclude or modify the implied warranty of fitness for a
`
`particular purpose.
`
`13 of 22
`13 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021-00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`93.
`
`Plaintiffs suffered damage to their finished cheese products as a result of
`
`using the defective, adulterated, and contaminated salt supplied by Cargill.
`
`94.
`
`Plaintiffs promptly, seasonably, and reasonably notified Cargill that the
`
`salt involved in the January incident was non-conforming within a reasonable time after
`
`discovery of the breach, or when a reasonable person should have discovered the breach.
`
`95.
`
`Cargill’s breach of warranty caused damage to Plaintiffs in an amount to
`
`be proven at trial, and in no event less than $1,882,503.00.
`
`(Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Against Cargill — August Incident)
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`96.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 95.
`
`97.
`
`The salt involved in the August incident supplied by Cargill to Plaintiffs
`
`was contaminated and therefore not of merchantable quality as (a) the salt did not pass without
`
`objection in the trade under the contract description; (b) the salt was not of fair or average quality
`
`within the description; (c) the salt was not fit for ordinary purposes for which the salt is used; (d)
`
`the salt did not run, within the variations permitted by the parties’ agreement, of even kind,
`
`quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and/or (e) the salt did not
`
`conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made by Cargill.
`
`98.
`
`Cargill’s supply of the salt involved in the August incident was a breach of
`
`the implied warranty of merchantability set forth in NY. U.C.C. § 2-314.
`
`99.
`
`Cargill did not exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability.
`
`14 of 22
`14 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021—00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`100.
`
`Plaintiffs suffered damage to their finished cheese products as a result of
`
`using the defective, adulterated, and contaminated salt supplied by Cargill.
`
`101.
`
`Plaintiffs promptly, seasonably, and reasonably notified Cargill that salt
`
`involved in the August incident was non-conforming within a reasonable time after discovery of
`
`the breach, or when a reasonable person should have discovered the breach.
`
`102.
`
`Cargill’s breach of warranty caused damage to Plaintiffs in an amount to
`
`be proven at trial, and in no event less than $831,800.00.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose Against Cargill —
`August Incident)
`
`103.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 102.
`
`104.
`
`Cargill knew or had reason to know that Plaintiffs intended to use the salt
`
`involved in the August incident to make food products for human consumption.
`
`105.
`
`Cargill knew or had reason to know that Plaintiffs relied on Cargill’s skill
`
`or judgment to select and/or furnish suitable goods for that purpose.
`
`106.
`
`The salt involved in the August incident was contaminated and therefore
`
`not fit for Plaintiffs’ purpose of making food products for human consumption.
`
`107.
`
`Cargill’s supply of the salt involved in the August incident was a breach of
`
`the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose set forth in NY. U.C.C. § 2-315.
`
`15 of 22
`15 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021—00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`108.
`
`Cargill did not exclude or modify the implied warranty of fitness for a
`
`particular purpose.
`
`109.
`
`Plaintiffs suffered damage to their finished cheese products as a result of
`
`using the defective, adulterated, and contaminated salt supplied by Cargill.
`
`110.
`
`Plaintiffs promptly, seasonably, and reasonably notified Cargill that the
`
`salt involved in the August incident was non-conforming within a reasonable time after
`
`discovery of the breach, or when a reasonable person should have discovered the breach.
`
`111.
`
`Cargill’s breach of warranty caused damage to Plaintiffs in an amount to
`
`be proven at trial, and in no event less than $831,800.00.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Strict Products Liability Against Cargill — January Incident)
`
`112.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 1 1 1.
`
`1 13.
`
`Cargill manufactured the salt involved in the January incident.
`
`114.
`
`Cargill introduced the salt involved in the January incident into the
`
`channels of commerce in New York.
`
`115.
`
`The salt involved in the January incident was defective because it was
`
`adulterated and/or contaminated with rocks.
`
`116. Upon information and belief, the salt involved in the January incident was
`
`delivered to Plaintiffs’ Adams facility salt silo without any change in its defective condition.
`
`16 of 22
`16 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021—00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`117.
`
`Plaintiffs used the salt involved in the January incident in the manner
`
`expected and intended by using it to produce cheese products.
`
`118.
`
`Plaintiffs suffered damage to their finished cheese products as a result of
`
`using the defective, adulterated, and contaminated salt supplied by Cargill.
`
`119.
`
`Cargill is strictly liable in tort for the supply of defective products to
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`120.
`
`Cargill’s supply of defective products to Plaintiffs in the January incident
`
`caused damage to Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial, and in no event less than
`
`$1,882,503.00.
`
`through 120.
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Strict Products Liability Against Cargill — August Incident)
`
`121.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`122.
`
`Cargill manufactured the salt involved in the August incident.
`
`123.
`
`Cargill introduced the salt involved in the August incident into the
`
`channels of commerce in New York.
`
`124.
`
`The salt involved in the August incident was defective because it was
`
`adulterated and/or contaminated with rock salt and/or otherwise non-food grade salt.
`
`125. Upon information and belief, the salt involved in the August incident was
`
`delivered to Plaintiffs’ Adams facility salt silo without any change in its defective condition.
`
`17 of 22
`17 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021—00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`126.
`
`Plaintiffs used the salt involved in the August incident in the manner
`
`expected and intended by using it to produce cheese products.
`
`127.
`
`Plaintiffs suffered damage to their finished cheese products as a result of
`
`using the defective, adulterated, and contaminated salt supplied by Cargill.
`
`128.
`
`Cargill is strictly liable in tort for the supply of defective products to
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`129.
`
`Cargill’s supply of defective products to Plaintiffs in the August incident
`
`caused damage to Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial, and in no event less than
`
`$831,800.00.
`
`through 129.
`
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Negligence Against Cargill — January Incident)
`
`130.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`131. Upon information and belief, the negligent acts or omissions of Cargill
`
`caused the salt involved in the January incident to become contaminated with rocks.
`
`132.
`
`Plaintiffs suffered damage to their finished cheese products as a result of
`
`using the defective, adulterated, and contaminated salt supplied by Cargill.
`
`133.
`
`Cargill’s supply of defective, adulterated, and contaminated salt to
`
`Plaintiffs in the January incident caused damage to Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial,
`
`and in no event less than $1,882,503.00.
`
`18 of 22
`18 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 3
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021—00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Negligence Against Cargill — August Incident)
`
`134.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 133.
`
`135. Upon information and belief, the negligent acts or omissions of Cargill
`
`caused the salt involved in the August incident to become contaminated with rock salt and/or
`
`otherwise non-food grade salt.
`
`136.
`
`Plaintiffs suffered damage to their finished cheese products as a result of
`
`using the defective, adulterated, and contaminated salt supplied by Cargill.
`
`137.
`
`Cargill’s supply of defective, adulterated, and contaminated salt to
`
`Plaintiffs in the August incident caused damage to Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial,
`
`and in no event less than $831,800.00.
`
`NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Negligence Against G&L — January Incident)
`
`138.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 137.
`
`139. Upon information and belief, the negligent acts or omissions of G&L
`
`caused the salt involved in the January incident to become contaminated with rocks.
`
`140.
`
`Plaintiffs suffered damage to their finished cheese products as a result of
`
`using salt rendered defective, adulterated, and contaminated by G&L.
`
`19 of 22
`19 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO.
`2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-00000810
`INDEX NO- EF2021-00000810
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2021
`
`141. G&L’s adulteration and/or contamination of the salt involved in the
`
`January incident caused damage to Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial, and in no event
`
`less than $1,882,503.00.
`
`TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Negligence Against Kuhnle — January Incident)
`
`142.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 141.
`
`143. Upon information and belief, the negligent acts or omissions of Kuhnle
`
`caused the salt involved in the January incident to become contaminated with rocks.
`
`144.
`
`Plaintiffs suffered damage to their finished cheese products as a result of
`
`using salt rendered defective, adulterated, and contaminated by Kuhnle.
`
`145. Kuhnle’s adulteration and/or contamination of the salt involved in the
`
`January incident caused damage to Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial, and in no event
`
`less than $1,882,503.00.
`
`ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Negligence Against G&L — August Incident)
`
`146.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 145.
`
`147. Upon information and belief, the negligent acts or omissions of G&L
`
`caused the salt involved in the August incident to become contaminated with rock salt and/or
`
`non-food grade salt.
`
`20 of 22
`20 of 22
`
`

`

`FILED: JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2021 11:45 AM
`FILED:
`JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK 04m2021 11:45 ‘
`I
`NYSCEF DOC.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket