Supreme Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. U.S. Beverage, Inc. et al

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re Supreme Manufacturing's 46 Motion for Summary Judgment: The Court has carefully considered the briefs, declarations, affidavits, and documents submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion. However, at this stage of the proceedings, this Court is not satisfied that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Additionally, Supreme Manufacturing has not shown that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as is required of a summary judgment movant. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Consequently, Supreme Manufacturings Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 46 ) is DENIED. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 11/29/2010. (dmn)

-WC Supreme Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. U.S. Beverage, Inc. et al

Doc. 61

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION S U P R E M E MANUFACTURING C O M P A N Y , INC., P la in tif f , v. U .S . BEVERAGE, INC., et al., D e f e n d a n ts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A S E NO. 2:08-cv-832-MEF (W O - Do Not Publish)

M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER T h is cause is before the Court on Plaintiff Supreme Manufacturing Company, In c .'s ("Supreme Manufacturing") Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 8, 2010 (D o c . # 46), and all relevant responses and replies. Supreme Manufacturing filed a complaint alleging breach of contract against all of th e named Defendants. (Doc. # 1). Defendants in turn alleged several counterclaims a g a in s t Supreme Manufacturing, including two violations of the Lanham Act, breach of c o n tra c t, breach of express warranty, two counts of breach of implied warranty, fraud, n e g lig e n t misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. (Doc. # 18). Supreme Manufacturing h a s moved for summary judgment on both its own claims and each of Defendants' c o u n te rc la im s . (Doc. # 46). For the foregoing reasons, that motion is due to be DENIED.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE T h is Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1 3 3 2 (a ), based on the diversity of the parties and an amount in controversy in excess of $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 . The parties do not assert that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, a n d there is no dispute that venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

II. LEGAL STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together w ith the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and th a t the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. C a tr e tt, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment "always b e a rs the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, a n d identifying those portions of `the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, a n d admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate th e absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Id. at 323. The movant can meet this b u rd e n by presenting evidence showing there is no dispute of material fact, or by showing th e non-moving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case o n which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Id. at 322­23; see also Fitzpatrick v. City o f Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115­16 (11th Cir. 1993) ("For issues, however, on which the

2

non-movant would bear the burden of proof at trial, . . . `[t]he moving party may simply s h o w [ ] . . . that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case.'") (q u o tin g U.S. v. Four Parcels of Real Property, 941 F.2d 1428, 1437­38 (11th Cir. 1 9 9 1 )). O n c e the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56(e) "requires the nonmoving p a rty to go beyond the pleadings and by [its] own affidavits, or by the `depositions, a n s w e rs to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate `specific facts showing that th e re is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex 477 U.S. at 324. A plaintiff must present e v id e n c e demonstrating that it can establish the basic elements of its claim. Celotex, 477 U .S . at 322. A court ruling on a motion for summary judgment must believe the evidence o f the non-movant and must draw all justifiable inferences from the evidence in the nonm o v in g party's favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. After the nonmoving party has responded to the motion for summary judgment, the c o u rt must grant summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the m o v in g party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

I I I . DISCUSSION T h e Court has carefully considered the briefs, declarations, affidavits, and d o c u m e n ts submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion. However, at this s ta g e of the proceedings, this Court is not satisfied that there are no genuine issues of

3

material fact. Additionally, Supreme Manufacturing has not shown that it is entitled to ju d g m e n t as a matter of law as is required of a summary judgment movant. Celotex, 477 U .S . at 322. Consequently, Supreme Manufacturing's Motion for Summary Judgment (D o c . # 46) is DENIED. D o n e this the 29 day of November, 2010.
th

/s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4