Fmc Corporation v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

85 F.3d 635 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. FMC CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP., Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-36180. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Dec. 6, 1995. Decided May 10, 1996. As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Aug. 8, 1996. 1 Before: D.W. NELSON and NOONAN, Circuit Judges and TANNER, * District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** NO. 94-36180 3 We affirm for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation filed on September 22, 1994 and adopted by the district court on October 11, 1994. 4 The Magistrate and district court did not address FMC's claim that there was an express warranty that the tap changer would perform 500,000 operations. Assuming that such a warranty was given, the warranty would not amount to an express future warranty extending the statute of limitations. The majority rule, which we have no reason to believe Idaho would not follow, requires "a…