The opinion of the court was delivered by: Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge
Plaintiff, Animal Hospital of Nashua, Inc. ("AHN"), is suing its suppliers of veterinary diagnostic services and equipment support services, VCA Cenvet, d/b/a Antech Diagnostics ("Antech"), and Sound Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Sound-Eklin ("Sound-Eklin"). AHN seeks to recover economic losses incurred as a result of defendants' failure to provide adequate services and equipment.
Before the court is defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to several of plaintiff's claims (document no. 27). For the reasons given, defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.
"A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is treated much like a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss." Estate of Bennett v. Wainwright, 548 F.3d 155, 163 (1st Cir. 2008) (citing Perez-Acevedo v. Rivero-Cubano, 520 F.3d 26, 29 (1st Cir. 2008)). When ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), the court takes the facts pled in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and "draw[s] all reasonably supported inferences in [its] favor." Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst., 553 F.3d 114, 115 (1st Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). "[T]o survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion (and, by extension, a Rule 12(c) motion) a complaint must contain factual allegations that 'raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'" Gray v. Evercore Restructuring L.L.C., 544 F.3d 320, 324 (1st Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). In other words, a Rule 12(c) motion should be granted "if the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to establish a 'claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 524 F.3d 315, 320 (1st Cir. 2008)).
The following facts are drawn from AHN's complaint, and are construed favorably to AHN.
AHN is a veterinary hospital located in Nashua, New Hampshire, and owned by Dr. Leo G. Bishop. Donna Cole is AHN's chief executive officer. In 2008, Antech, a provider of veterinary diagnostic and clinical laboratory services, approached Bishop and Cole. It represented itself as a "leading animal care company" offering "better pricing than [its] competitors with equivalent or superior service and quality." Antech offered to provide AHN with lab services, an x-ray system, and a loan of $100,000, in exchange for AHN's commitment to use Antech's laboratory services for six years and make an annual payment to Antech of $200,000 during that period.
On August 1, 2008, AHN and Antech entered into a Loan Service Agreement and an Equipment Service Agreement. Under the agreements, Antech was to provide "all veterinary diagnostic and clinical laboratory Services" to AHN for six years, but AHN was free to "use a laboratory other than a[n] Antech Lab to perform services that a[n] Antech lab cannot perform." Amended Complaint, pars. 14, 15, document no. 17. Under the Equipment Services Agreement, Antech provided AHN with an x-ray system and other equipment manufactured by Sound Technologies, Inc. (collectively "STI Equipment"), and it purchased service and warranty coverage to support AHN's use of the equipment (the "Service and Warranty Agreement"). Defendant Sound-Eklin was a party to the Service and Warranty Agreement.*fn1 Under that agreement, Sound-Eklin warranted that the STI Equipment would be free from defects for one year, and it further promised to provide, among other things, remote diagnostics, call support, and software downloads and fixes.
Starting sometime in 2009, "numerous" laboratory test results AHN received using the STI Equipment and Antech's laboratory services were "incorrect." AHN told Antech of the errors, but Antech failed to address or respond to AHN's concerns.
In February of 2011, two and one-half years into the contract term, AHN began experiencing significant problems with the STI Equipment. It soon discovered that Antech and Sound-Eklin had discontinued the x-ray system's "imaging receptor" - a piece of hardware that captures images during exposure. It also learned that defendants had discontinued software support for the x-ray system.
In August 2011, AHN brought its business to an alternative laboratory services provider. When Antech threatened litigation, AHN, under protest and subject to a reservation of its rights, repaid Antech the remaining balances on the loan and all open invoices, and it made the STI Equipment available for pick-up by Antech.
AHN then filed suit in this court alleging that it incurred costs in excess of $450,000 as a result of defendants' conduct. It asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, ...