Pinnacle Biofuels, Inc. v. Gulf Hydrocarbon, Inc.

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on March 4, 2014. (cnn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
PINNACLE BIOFUELS, INC.
V.

PLAINTIFFS
Civil No. 1:12-cv-1120

GULF HYDROCARBON, INC. and
GULF HYDROCARBON PARTNERS, Ltd.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) filed on behalf of
Plaintiff Pinnacle Biofuels, Inc. (“Pinnacle Biofuels”). After the Court filed a Show Cause Order
(ECF No. 21), Defendants Gulf Hydrocarbon Inc., and Gulf Hydrocarbon Partners, Ltd., (“Gulf
Hydrocarbon”) responded. (ECF No. 22). However, Defendants failed to file a brief in support
of their response or a statement of facts. On February 11, 2014, the Clerk of the Court filed a
Notice of Deficiency directing Defendants to immediately remedy their deficient response. (ECF
No. 23). Defendants have failed to remedy the deficiency. This matter is ripe for the Court’s
consideration.
BACKGROUND
From January 20, 2012, through March 26, 2012, Gulf Hydrocarbon purchased biofuel
products from Pinnacle Biofuels. The purchases amounted to $1,336,391.28. Subsequently,
Pinnacle Biofuels gave Gulf Hydrocarbon a credit of $468,923.60. The credits reduced Gulf
Hydrocarbon’s debt to $867,467.68.

However, Gulf Hydrocarbon failed to pay Pinnacle

Biofuels the remaining debt. The Chief Financial Officer of Gulf Hydrocarbon, Roland Jimenez,
admitted in a deposition that Gulf Hydrocarbon owed Pinnacle Biofuels $867,467.68. (ECF No.
20).

1

Unable to collect the remaining debt, Pinnacle Biofuels brought suit in this Court.
Subsequently, Pinnacle Biofuels filed the Motion for Summary Judgment that is currently before
the Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review for summary judgment is well established. The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure provide that when a party moves for summary judgment: “The court shall grant
summary judgment if the movant shows 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); Krenik v. Cnty.
of LeSueur, 47 F.3d 953 (8th Cir.1995). The Supreme Court has issued the following guidelines
for trial courts to determine whether this standard has been satisfied:
The inquiry performed is the threshold inquiry of determining whether there
is a need for trial—whether, in other words, there are genuine factual issues
that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may
reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). See also Agristor Leasing v. Farrow,
826 F.2d 732 (8th Cir. 1987); Niagara of Wisconsin Paper Corp. v. Paper Indus. Union-Mgmt.
Pension Fund, 800 F.2d 742, 746 (8th Cir. 1986). A fact is material only when its resolution
affects the outcome of the case. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute is genuine if the evidence
is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party. Id. at 252.
The Court must view the evidence and the inferences that may be reasonably drawn from
the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Enterprise Bank v. Magna
Bank, 92 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir. 1996). The moving party bears the burden of showing that
there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.
The nonmoving party must then demonstrate the existence of specific facts in the record that
create a genuine issue for trial. Krenik, 47 F.3d at 957. A party opposing a properly supported
2

motion for summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but must set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256.
DISCUSSION
Gulf Hydrocarbon’s response failed to include a brief or a statement of facts. Thus, Gulf
Hydrocarbon has failed to set forth facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial and is deemed
to have admitted all of the facts articulated in Pinnacle Biofuel’s statement of undisputed facts.
Local Rule 56.1(c).

Pinnacle Biofuel’s statement of undisputed facts reports that Gulf

Hydrocarbon failed to pay Pinnacle Biofuels $867,467.68 for the purchase of biofuel products.
Accordingly, Pinnacle Biofuels is entitled to summary judgment in the amount of $867,467.68
plus interest.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 18) should be and hereby is GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment
in the amount of $867,467.68 plus interest. An order of even date consistent with this Opinion
shall issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 4th day of March, 2014.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

3