DeAcero, S.A. De C v. v. Core Furnace Systems Corp.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
AMBROSE, Chief Judge.
I. MEMORANDUM
For the reasons that follow, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted and this case dismissed with prejudice.
The Plaintiff (“DeAcero”) is- a Mexican company that makes steel products, and the Defendant (“Core”) is a Pennsylvania company that, among other .things, provides engineering and equipment installation services. See generally Compl. (Doc. 1) at ¶¶2-5. 1 In July 2000, the parties entered into a letter agreement establishing a two-phase project for improving DeAcero’s mill in Saltillo Coahuillo, Mexico (“the Mill”). See…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Beneficial National Bank v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Ward Trucking Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Treesdale, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
- Cathleen Carmen Mary Whiting v. Peter L. Krassner, A/K/A Mike Cimino Peter KrassnerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2004
- Discover Bank Discover Financial Services, Incorporated v. Betty E. VadenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Carrington Kevon Joseph v. Marika Merritt, et al.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2025
- DeAcero, S.A. de C.V. v. Core Furnace Systems Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006