UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EXECUTIVE AERONAUTICAL GROUP, Case No. 19-cv-08370-VC LLC,

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY v. JUDGMENT; GRANTING SUA SPONTE PARTIAL SUMMARY MAINTENANCE EXPRESS, INC., JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 58

Executive Aeronautical’s motion for summary judgment is denied for two independent reasons. First, after seeking permission to file a late summary judgment motion on the grounds that a newly discovered legal argument would be dispositive of the case, Executive Aeronautical filed a motion that was substantively different from and beyond the scope of the motion it was granted permission to file. Second, as a substantive matter it is clear that there are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Maintenance Express could be liable on the theory that they failed to notice that the cylinder they were installing was defective. However, having given Executive Aeronautical notice and an opportunity to respond pursuant to Rule 56(f) (Dkt. No. 75), the Court now grants summary judgment in favor of Maintenance Express on Executive Aeronautical’s claims for breach of contract and breach of warranties. Those claims fail as a matter of law because Executive Aeronautical was never in privity with Maintenance Express, nor do any of the narrow exemptions from the privity requirement apply. Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2008). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 21, 2021 Lo. ee VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge