Esteemed Students!
In prep for our discussion of commencing actions in Civ Pro class on Friday Nov. 6, please review this actual summons and complaint filed in the New York Supreme Court case of CUH2A v. Pepsico. Do your best to understand it! By 1pm Friday, please post a short “reply” to THIS POST stating your thoughtful response or reaction to the documents, and/or one or more questions you have about them.
See you Friday,
Prof. C.
What I understood from the CUH2A v. Pepsico case is that these two companies are the parties involved. There’re a lot of facts present to state what has happened before the summons and complaint has been filed. In the third cause of action the plaintiff demands judgement from the defendant that excess to $2,000,000 and the jurisdiction is diversity.
Thanks Zainab, great observations!
After reading the case CUH2A vs Pepsico. I understand that this case is between two companies. The key thing is both companies have the license to do business in New York. Pepsico just paid one payment to CUH2A instead of paying more payments. Pepsico agreed to that contract however they breach the contract by not paying more than one payment.
Thanks Mian! You pretty much got it.
After reading PepsiCO vs CUH2A, I learned that PepsoCO violated the mutual contract between the 2 companies due to lack of payment and disregarding CUH2A’s brand. This resulted in CUH2A’s suing for grievances.
Thanks Casimir! Great deciphering.
This is a summon and complaints files from CUH2A the plaintiff to Pepsico, INC the defendant. CUH2A is asking for 2,000,000.00 and more granted by the law because of all the services provided to Pepsico based on the agreement on the Proposal. CUH2A upheld the end of their bargain but Pepsico never did and kept giving excuses even though where asked multiple times to pay for their services. That Pepsico was even improved for the services of CUH2A whereas CUH2A was losing money. I don’t understand the first, second and third action it seems like they are repeating what they said the first time.
Thanks Carmen! You’re correct, the three causes of action repeat what was said earlier. That’s actually permitted by the pleading rules that we’ll discuss. Excellent catch!
Prof. C.
The review of summons and complaint talks about the case of PepsiCo and CUH2A’s that how PepsiCo couldn’t payed the amounts of the architectural company named cuh2a. PepsiCo stopped the contract with the company due to some economic reasons and later on CUH2A found out that PepsiCo have written some other professional’s name and title on some certain papers. And the architectural company filed a case where they demand two million dollars damamges from defendant.
Thanks Amatul, you got it!
After reading this case pepsiCo was once pleased with CUH2A because of the professional service that was rendered to them. But then pepsiCo started to have financial problems and suspended the project and because it was suspended CUH2A had its own activites and needed the money owed by pepsiCo . Instead if giving all of the money pepciCO only made 1 payment. Which lead to CUH2A into suing.
Thanks Esther, great understanding!
So far my understanding of this case is that the Plaintiff ( CUH2A ) is suing defendant (PepsiCo )because PepsiCo id not want to pay up the money that they owed CUH2A for them helping PepsiCo with their project. PepsiCo tries to explain that they could not give them the money as of right then and their due to their own personal reasons. As a result of that PepsiCo breached their contract with CUH2A. As a result of that CUH2A was losing money while PepsiCo was benefiting off of what CUH2A did in order tp help their company. That is honestly all I’m understanding from the reading.
Thanks Daziah, you understand it quite well!
To my understanding,this is a summons towards defendant Pepsico , and the plantiff CUH2A who is suing because Pepsico failed to uphold their part of the contract. Pepsico owes CUH2A 2 million dollars because although they were making designs they stopped getting paid.This summons gives Pepsico time to make any changes before they proceed further with the allegations in court.
Thanks Sherona! That’s an interesting perspective on the summons. I think you’re correct, I just never thought of it that way. 🙂
What was specifically stated in the contract and why did PepsiCo assume that they would be able to deceive CUH2AA regarding their pay?
Thanks Ninmah, you raise excellent questions! Those are the types of questions that would be answered during the court proceedings.
After reading summons and complaints filed of CUH2A v. Pepsico. CUH2A is the plaintiff that is suing Pepsico that is the defendant. CUH2A has been working for Pepsico project. With in agreement of multiple payments throughout the process of work in Pepsico project. Due to failure payments from Pepsico and have only received only one payment. Instead of the other multiple payments that should have been made. Which is why CUH2A is suing Pepsico.
Thanks Yadira, you got it!
Upon reading this summons and complaints I can see that it’s regarding the payment of CUH2A. From my understanding it seems that PepsiCo has refused to pay CUH2A for the rest of their services. Therefore CUH2A is now demanding PepsiCo pay them two million dollars as well as other relief that would be determined in court. It is stated that PepsiCo was satisfied with the work that CUH2A had accomplished. From what it seems PepsiCo also stole the work of CUH2A and just modified it to make it seem like it was their own.
Thanks Michelle, your understanding is correct!
After my reading, I think it’s about a company suing PepsiCo because they failed to make payments on a project they were both agreed on.
Thanks Fatou, your reading is correct!