United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-3171 RCBA NUTRACEUTICALS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PROAMPAC HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 2:23-cv-00305-WED — William E. Duffin, Magistrate Judge. ____________________

ARGUED MAY 29, 2024 — DECIDED JULY 26, 2024 ____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. RCBA Nutraceuticals, LLC contracted for the manufacture of zipper pouches to hold its protein powder. The pouches were made in Wisconsin by ProAmpac Holdings, Inc., which shipped them to companies in New York and Texas that filled them with RCBA’s prod- ucts. But the pouches turned out to be defective, so RCBA sued. Because RCBA’s claims were barred by applicable state 2 No. 23-3171 statute of limitations or precluded for other reasons, we af- firm the district court’s dismissal of RCBA’s suit. I We relay the facts as alleged in the complaint by the plain- tiff, RCBA, a Florida nutritional supplements company. RCBA contracted with Western Packaging, Inc., a Texas cor- poration, for the manufacture of plastic zipper pouches to hold its protein powder. Western had PolyFirst Packaging, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation that operates a manufacturing facility in Wisconsin and shares common ownership with Western, manufacture the pouches. Later ProAmpac, a Dela- ware corporation, acquired PolyFirst and continued manufac- turing RCBA’s pouches. ProAmpac used PolyFirst’s facilities and equipment in Wisconsin. Once manufactured in Wisconsin, the pouches were shipped to companies in New York and Texas. Those compa- nies filled orders and shipped products to RCBA’s distribu- tors and customers. Shortly after ProAmpac acquired PolyFirst, RCBA learned that the pouches were defective. They began receiving complaints that the seams on the pouches split, and RCBA’s protein powder spilled out. So RCBA sued ProAmpac in federal court in Wisconsin, bringing various contract and tort claims. The contract claims alleged breach of implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of contract. The tort claims alleged negligence, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent misrepresentations. 1

1 Before this action, RCBA sued in Florida state court, but that suit was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. See ProAmpac Holdings, Inc. No. 23-3171 3

ProAmpac moved to dismiss RCBA’s complaint on various grounds. As relevant to the district court’s ultimate ruling, ProAmpac argued that all RCBA’s claims were time- barred and that the tort claims were precluded by the eco- nomic loss doctrine. The district court granted ProAmpac’s motion and dis- missed the case with prejudice. The court concluded that all six of RCBA’s claims were “foreign” causes of action under Wisconsin’s borrowing statute, WIS. STAT. § 893.07. New York’s and Texas’s statutes of limitations applied to the con- tract claims because the “final significant event” giving rise to those claims—the failure of the pouches—occurred where the fillers were located, in New York and Texas. The court also found that Florida’s statute of limitations applied to the neg- ligence claim. Applying New York’s and Texas’s limitations period to the contract claims and Florida’s limitations period to the negligence claim, the court found those claims time- barred. It was unclear when the remaining civil conspi