confirmation and invoice contained a reference to the CDW Terms and Policies or Terms and Conditions, and that BVS received 269 order confirmations, 363 shipping confirmations and 363 invoices from CDW since 2007). The parties’ course of dealing makes it clear that the Terms and Conditions apply to any transaction or agreement that the parties entered into. See Avedon Eng’g, Inc., 112 F.Supp.2d at 1094 (stating that prior course of dealing “is important to evaluate” in determining whether additional terms materially alter the contract). The court finds that, because BVS and CDW have completed hundreds of transactions incorporating the Terms and Conditions, BVS has failed to show that it was surprised by the Terms and Conditions. See All-Iowa Contracting Co., 296 F.Supp.2d at 979 (<HOLDING>); Avedon Eng’g, Inc., 112 F.Supp.2d at 1094
holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff could not show surprise when the plaintiff had received the additional terms from the defendant prior to the agreement holding that the statute of limitations began to run when the plaintiff first received notice of an alleged deficiency from the irs not when he received a final determination of tax liability holding that the defendant though not a party to the prior litigation could assert collateral estoppel defensively to preclude the plaintiff from relitigating factual issues that the plaintiff had previously litigated and lost holding that the plaintiff had offered insufficient evidence to establish deliberate indifference in a failuretotrain claim in part because the plaintiff did not present evidence that the training received was inadequate or evidence of any specific additional training that the employees should have received