Edu-Science (USA) Inc. v. Intubrite, LLC
Filing
144
ORDER Granting 128 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment: The Court grants in part Edu-Science's motion for partial summary judgment. The Court dismisses IntuBrite's third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh counterclaims and request for punitive damages. The Court denies the motion as it relates to IntuBrite's second counterclaim. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 6/23/15. (dlg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
EDU-SCIENCE (USA) INC.,
Plaintiff,
15
16
17
18
19
v.
Case No. 12-cv-1078 BAS (JLB)
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Plaintif
v.
[ECF 128]
Defenda
INTUBRITE LLC,
Defendant.
AND RELATED
COUNTERCLAIMS
20
21
On April 23, 2015, Plaintiff Edu-Science (USA) Inc. (“Edu-USA”) and
22
Counter-Defendant Edu-Science (HK) Ltd. (“Edu-HK”) (collectively, “Edu-
23
Science”) moved for partial summary judgment (ECF 128) on Defendant and
24
Counter-Complainant IntuBrite LLC’s (“IntuBrite”) second, third, fourth, fifth,
25
sixth, and seventh counterclaims, as set forth in IntuBrite’s First Amended
26
Counterclaim (“IACC”, ECF 99). IntuBrite has abandoned its third, fourth, and
27
fifth claims. Intubrite’s Mem. of Facts and Contentions of Law 12, ECF 130. The
28
Court heard oral argument on the motion on June 22, 2015. For the following
–1–
12-cv-1078 BAS (JLB)
1
reasons, the Court GRANTS summary judgment on IntuBrite’s sixth and seventh
2
counterclaims in favor of the movants and DENIES summary judgment on
3
IntuBrite’s second counterclaim.
4
I.
BACKGROUND
5
On February 16, 2013, Edu-USA sued IntuBrite for breach of contract. Edu-
6
USA alleges that IntuBrite breached its contract to purchase custom-manufactured
7
instruments for tracheal intubation from Edu-USA.
8
IntuBrite, in the counterclaim addressed in the present motion, alleged that
9
the products delivered were defective and untimely. IACC ¶¶ 33–35. IntuBrite
10
further claims it paid fully for the products it actually received. IACC ¶ 36.
11
IntuBrite has chosen to proceed on four of the seven claims against Edu-USA and
12
Edu-HK: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied warranty of
13
merchantability; (6) intentional misrepresentation of fact; and (7) negligent
14
misrepresentation of fact.
15
The Court previously denied Edu-USA and Edu-HK’s request to assert tort
16
claims. ECF 118. Now, Edu-USA and Edu-HK move to dismiss IntuBrite’s tort
17
claims because IntuBrite lacks substantial evidence to support its claims. They also
18
move to dismiss IntuBrite’s second claim, arguing that IntuBrite’s evidence of
19
damages is inadmissible. IntuBrite’s Opposition to the motion includes evidence to
20
support the breach of implied warranty claim, but it fails to point to substantial
21
evidence supporting material elements of the tort claims. Therefore the Court must
22
grant summary judgment in favor of Edu-USA and Edu-HK on the sixth and
23
seventh claim and deny summary judgment on the second claim.
LEGAL STANDARD
24
II.
25
Summary judgment is appropriate on “all or any part” of a claim if there is
26
an absence of a genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
27
judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
28
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (“Celotex”). A fact is material when, under the
–2–
12-cv-1078 BAS (JLB)
1
governing substantive law, the fact could affect the outcome of the case. See
2
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also Freeman v.
3
Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir. 1997). A dispute about a material fact is
4
genuine if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
5
nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. One of the principal purposes of
6
Rule 56 is to dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. See Celotex, 477
7
U.S. at 323–24.
8
The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a
9
genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. “The burden then
10
shifts to the nonmoving party to establish, beyond the pleadings, that there is a
11
genuine issue for trial.”
12
(9th Cir. 2006) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324).
Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 987
13
“[W]hen the non-moving party bears the burden of proving the claim or
14
defense, the moving party can meet its burden by pointing out the absence of
15
evidence from the non-moving party. The moving party need not disprove the
16
other party's case.” Miller, 454 F.3d at 987 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325).
17
“Thus, ‘[s]ummary judgment for a defendant is appropriate when the plaintiff fails
18
to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to
19
[his] case, and on which [he] will bear the burden of proof at trial.’ ” Miller, 454
20
F.3d at 987 (quoting Cleveland v. Policy Management Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795,
21
805–06 (1999) (internal quotations omitted)).
22
A genuine issue at trial cannot be based on disputes over “irrelevant or
23
unnecessary facts[.]” See T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n,
24
809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Similarly, “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of
25
evidence in support of the nonmoving party's position is not sufficient.” Triton
26
Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing
27
28
–3–
12-cv-1078 BAS (JLB)
1
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252).1 The party opposing summary judgment must “by [his
2
or her] own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
3
admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
4
for trial.’ ” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 56(e)). That party
5
cannot “rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his or her] pleadings.” Fed. R.
6
Civ. P. 56(e).
7
When making its determination, the Court must view all inferences drawn
8
from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See
9
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
10
“Credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of
11
legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, [when]
12
ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
III.
13
ANALYSIS
A.
14
Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability
15
Edu-Science moves for summary judgment on IntuBrite’s second claim for
16
Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability on the grounds that IntuBrite
17
cannot prove it was damaged because of the claimed breach. Primarily, Edu-
18
Science objects to the admissibility of Leslie Tenger’s Declaration. The Court
19
OVERRULES these objections without prejudice to re-raising them at trial.
20
Tenger states that IntuBrite’s employees spent approximately 4,700 hours
21
“performing quality control” related to Edu-Science goods. Tenger Decl. ¶ 4, ECF
22
134-2. She also states she personally spent approximately 1,175 hours performing
23
quality control on Edu-Science goods. Id. ¶ 5. Edu-Science argues this is
24
inadmissible because it includes inspection of all of Edu-Science’s provided goods,
25
not just those that breached the warranty of merchantability.
26
27
28
1
See also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (if
the moving party meets this initial burden, the nonmoving party cannot defeat summary judgment
by merely demonstrating “that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts”).
–4–
12-cv-1078 BAS (JLB)
1
At this point, Edu-Science has provided no case law beyond the text of
2
California Commercial Code § 2715(1) to support its contention that only
3
inspection of defective goods are incidental damages of this breach. In Peterson
4
Bros. v. Mineral King Fruit Co., 140 Cal. 624, 633 (1903), the court found that
5
expenses incurred examining goods that were merchantable could not be
6
recovered. Conversely, if “goods are rightly rejected because of what the
7
inspection reveals, demonstrable and reasonable costs of the inspection are part of
8
[] incidental damage caused by the seller's breach.” Cal. Comm. Code § 2513,
9
Official Comment 4.
10
In this case, Tenger states Edu-Science inspected 36,054 laryngoscope
11
blades, of which 6,580 were defective. Tenger Decl. ¶ 2. Assuming that these
12
blades were rightfully rejected, a reasonable inspection may include inspection of
13
all of the blades. Therefore substantial evidence supports damages for this cause of
14
action. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Edu-Science’s motion for summary
15
judgment on IntuBrite’s second claim for breach of implied warranty of
16
merchantability.
17
B.
Tort Claims
18
IntuBrite’s sixth and seventh claims, for intentional and negligent
19
misrepresentation of fact, are both premised on two distinct alleged
20
misrepresentations. First, IntuBrite alleges that Patrick Ng represented that Edu-
21
USA was the United States Office of Edu-HK. Construing facts in favor of
22
IntuBrite, the Court accepts that this representation was false at the time it was
23
made in 2009, even though IntuBrite has failed to attach supporting evidence to its
24
Opposition. However, while this misrepresentation may have been made, there is
25
no evidence showing that this fact is material. IntuBrite alleges they would not
26
have entered into the contract if they had known the Edu-Science entities were
27
separate, but it fails to show how this is material. Without such a showing,
28
IntuBrite cannot support its assertion that this fact was material.
–5–
12-cv-1078 BAS (JLB)
1
Additionally, there is no evidence to support IntuBrite’s unfounded belief
2
that Patrick Ng intended to supply late and substandard goods to IntuBrite. John
3
Hicks declares that the goods were “routinely delivered late and some of the
4
delivered products had serious defects” to support IntuBrite’s position. Hicks Decl.
5
¶ 8, ECF 134-1. This is insufficient. First, IntuBrite admits that the majority of the
6
products delivered conformed to its specifications. See Tenger Decl. This
7
conformity demonstrates Edu-Science’s attempt to fulfill the contract, negating any
8
speculation that at the time the contract was entered into, Edu-Science intended to
9
breach it. Similarly, Ng’s statements that Edu-Science would meet deadlines
10
preceded the actual contract by five months. There is no evidence that Ng
11
represented that Edu-Science could meet specific deadlines in April 2009. Based
12
on Ng’s deposition testimony, the deadline in question was not transmitted to Ng
13
until September 10, 2009. Ng Dep. 120, ECF 138-1. Accordingly, because there
14
were no material misrepresentations that were false when made, the tort claims are
15
DISMISSED.
16
17
C.
Punitive Damages
Edu-Science seeks summary judgment on IntuBrite’s prayer for punitive
18
damages because IntuBrite’s fourth and sixth causes of action have no evidentiary
19
support. Mot. 14:4–9, ECF 128. IntuBrite has subsequently abandoned its fourth
20
cause of action, but it still asserts that it “presents evidence of EDU’s fraudulent
21
inducement of IntuBrite to enter into a contract, which could support an award of
22
punitive damages.” Opp. 9:14–17, ECF 134.
23
California Civil Code § 3294 provides for punitive damages “[i]n an action
24
for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear
25
and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or
26
malice[.]” § 3294(a).
27
Here, the Court has dismissed all claims not stemming from the contract. See
28
Section III.B., supra. Because the remaining claims arise on the contract, California
–6–
12-cv-1078 BAS (JLB)
1
law does not permit a punitive damages award. Accordingly, because the evidence
2
cannot support punitive damages, the request for punitive damages is DISMISSED.
3
IV.
4
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Edu-Science’s
5
motion for partial summary judgment. ECF 128. The Court DISMISSES
6
IntuBrite’s third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh counterclaims and request for
7
punitive damages. ECF 99. The Court DENIES the motion as it relates to
8
IntuBrite’s second counterclaim. ECF 128.
9
10
CONCLUSION
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 23, 2015
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–7–
12-cv-1078 BAS (JLB)
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?