234 Harbor Circle, L.L.C. v. JP&D Digital Satellite Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 22

ORDER AND REASONS denying 14 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier. (gec, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
234 HARBOR CIRCLE, LLC

CIVIL ACTION
NO: 11-1818

VERSUS
JP&D DIGITAL SATELLITE
SYSTEMS, INC, ET AL

SECTION: "J"(4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff 234 Harbor Circle, LLC's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 14), Defendants JP&D
Digital Satellite Systems, Inc. and Directv, Inc.'s Memorandum in
Opposition (Rec. Doc. 16), and Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum (Rec.
Doc. 17).
This contractual dispute involves the alleged breach of the
terms of a warehouse lease by Defendants.

Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants damaged the property during the terms of the lease,
remained in possession of the property beyond the termination of
the lease, and failed to return the property in a condition required by
the terms of the lease.

Defendant disputes that the property was ever

damaged and alleges that the property was returned in substantially
the same condition as it was originally delivered to them.

Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.”

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).

The moving

party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986). If that burden has been met, the non-moving party
must then come forward and establish the specific material facts in
dispute to survive summary judgment.

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.

v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986).

In this case, the

Court finds that genuine issues of material fact regarding whether
the property was ever damaged and the precise condition of the
property at the time it was returned to the Plaintiff.
Further, the Court notes that Defendants only recently filed
an Answer and that no discovery between the parties has taken
place.

Accordingly,

judgment is premature.

Plaintiff’s

motion

for

partial

summary

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d) provides that “[i]f a

nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified
reasons,

it

cannot

present

opposition, the court may:

facts

essential

to

justify

its

(1) defer considering the motion or

deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to
take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.”
A party seeking additional discovery in order to oppose a motion
2

for

summary

judgment

must

demonstrate

both

"why

additional

discovery is necessary" and "how additional discovery will create
a genuine issue of material fact." Canady v. Bossier Parish School
Bd., 240 F.3d 437, 445 (5th Cir. 2001).

Here, Defendants’ counsel

has provided an affidavit attesting to the fact that no discovery
has

been

taken,

and

that

additional

discovery

would

allow

Defendants to rebut the Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the
alleged damages to the property at 234 Harbor Circle, as well as
the other allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s motion.

The Court

finds that Defendants have demonstrated that additional discovery
is necessary.

Plaintiff may reassert its motion for summary

judgment after providing Defendants adequate discovery to allow
them to oppose such a motion.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (Rec. Doc. 14) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 4th day of November, 2011.

United States District Judge

3