A.E. Petsche Co., Inc. v. JKM Manufacturing, Inc., et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that Plf's 37 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED; The court will withhold final judgment until it adjudicates "all of the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); further ORDERED that Plf's 39 Motion for Order is DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 8/5/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
A.E. PETSCHE CO., INC.,
JKM MANUFACTURING, INC.,
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-919-WKW
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
A.E. Petsche’s motion for partial summary judgment against Mr. White is
before the court. (Doc. # 37.) Despite the issuance of a show cause order (Doc.
# 40), Mr. White has not responded. The motion is due to be granted.
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Jurisdiction over this action is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Personal
jurisdiction and venue are uncontested.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
To succeed on summary judgment, the movant must demonstrate “that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court must view the evidence and the
inferences from that evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816, 820 (11th Cir. 2010).
The party moving for summary judgment “always bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion.” Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). This responsibility includes identifying
the portions of the record illustrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material
fact. Id. If the movant meets its evidentiary burden, the burden shifts to the
nonmoving party to establish – with evidence beyond the pleadings – that a genuine
dispute material to each of its claims for relief exists. Id. at 324. A genuine dispute
of material fact exists when the nonmoving party produces evidence allowing a
reasonable factfinder to return a verdict in its favor. Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental
Assocs., 276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001).
“[T]he district court cannot base the entry of summary judgment on the mere
fact that the motion was unopposed, but, rather, must consider the merits of the
motion.” United States v. One Piece of Prop., 5800 S.W. 4th Ave., Miami, Fla., 363
F.3d 1099, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004). The court, however, “need not sua sponte review
all of the evidentiary materials on file at the time the motion is granted, but must
ensure that the motion itself is supported by evidentiary materials.” Id.
Defendant JKM Manufacturing, Inc., breached a contract and now it owes
Plaintiff A.E. Petsche Co., Inc., a lot of money – that much is settled. (See Doc. # 35
(granting A.E. Petsche’s motion for partial summary judgment against JKM).) Now
A.E. Petsche argues that Defendant Chad B. White is personally liable for most of
The complaint alleges two causes of action against Mr. White, but A.E. Petsche
only moves for summary judgment on the one that accuses Mr. White of breaching
a personal guaranty. And that motion is due to be granted under the governing state
law. (Doc. # 37-1 at 5–9 (setting out relevant Alabama and Georgia law).)
The unchallenged evidence shows that Mr. White signed a personal guaranty
promising to pay any debt JKM owes to A.E. Petsche over $50,000 and that Mr.
White never revoked that promise. That means Mr. White is liable for $708,477.881
of the debt JKM owes to A.E. Petsche.
That is the $908,477.88 the court found A.E. Petsche was owed (Doc. # 35 at 5) minus
$50,000 of that debt Mr. White never agreed to pay and $150,000 A.E. Petsche collected from
someone else (Doc. # 37 at 2 n.1).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary
judgment (Doc. # 37) is GRANTED. The court will withhold final judgment until it
adjudicates “all of the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for order (Doc. # 39) is
DENIED as moot.
DONE this 5th day of August, 2013.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?