Amin v. Kyros Energy LLC et al

Filing 39

RULING granting 26 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed Order in conformance with the Court's Ruling. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 3/5/2018. (SGO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RUPAL AMIN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

17-56-SDD-EWD

KYROS ENERGY, LLC AND
STAN CONLEY

RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment1 filed by
Plaintiff, Rupal Amin (“Plaintiff”). Defendants, Kyros Energy LLC (“Kyros”) and Stan
Conley (“Conley”), filed an Opposition2 and Plaintiff has replied3. For the reasons which
follow, the Court shall GRANT the Motion.
I.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual allegations and the posture of the matter is set forth in the Court’s

Ruling4 on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction5 and are
incorporated herein by reference.
II.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, the discovery, and any

1

Rec. Doc. No. 26.
Rec. Doc. No. 31.
3
Rec. Doc. No. 34.
4
Rec. Doc. No. 22.
5
Rec. Doc. 6.
2

44369

affidavits show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”6 All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor
of the nonmoving party, but “unsupported allegations” are insufficient to either support or
defeat a motion for summary judgment.7 The nonmoving party may not rely merely on
the pleadings but rather identify specific facts in the record and precisely articulate how
the evidence establishes a genuine issue for trial.8 Thus, a genuine issue of material fact
is not satisfied by merely creating “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,” “by
conclusory allegations,” by “unsubstantiated assertions,” or “by only a scintilla of
evidence.”9
B. Analysis
This matter invokes the diversity jurisdiction of the Court. State substantive law
applies. It is firmly established that suits on promissory notes are suitable for disposition
summary judgment.10 Under Louisiana law, in a suit for collection of a promissory note,
the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by (1) establishing that the defendant executed
the note and (2) by producing the note.11 Once the note is produced, the burden shifts to
the defendant to establish any affirmative defenses.12
In the instant case, Amin has produced the Promissory Note and Personal

6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air
Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994).
7
Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985).
8
See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998).
9
Little, 37 F.3d at 1075
10
See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Cardinal Oil Well Servicing Co., Inc., 837 F.2d 1369, 1371 (5th Cir.
1988) (“Typically, suits on promissory notes provide fit grist for the summary judgment mill.”).
11
See Am. Bank v. Saxena, 553 So.2d 836, 842 (La. 1989)
12
Id.; Bank of America, N.A. v. World of Smiles, No. CV 16-2874, 2017 WL 750400, at *6 (E.D. La. Feb.
27, 2017).

44369

Guaranty.13 In their opposition, the Defendants, Kryos and Conley acknowledge the
execution of the note and personal guaranty, concede the payment obligation evidenced
by these documents, and concede that there is an outstanding balance due under the
terms of the note.14
Having come forward with evidence of the Note and Guaranty, the burden shifts to
the nonmoving party to establish the nonexistence, extinguishment, or variance in the
payment of the obligation.15 Bare recitals and assertions of defenses without factual
evidence or argument offered in support will not defeat summary judgment.16
Kyros and Conley maintain that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding
the amount of the outstanding balance, but they do not assert any facts or point to any
evidence to contest the amount due. Kyros and Conley claim: (1) unconscionable and
unreasonable terms as provided in the Promissory Note, (2) to have proposed a
reasonable alternative payment plan, and (3) to have provided Amin with reassurances
and information of their intent to repay the investment, the funding process is underway,
and that payment would be forthcoming. However, Kyros and Conley’s assertions do not
tend to prove or disprove a material fact for a breach of contract claim. Defendants urge
the Court to deny Summary Judgment to allow time for discovery. The Court treats this
as request for relief under Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In Washington v. Allstate, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court granting
summary judgment for a breach of contract claim prior to discovery. The court held that
Rule 56 does not require that any discovery take place before summary judgment can be

13

Rec. Doc. 1-2, p. 4-5.
Rec. Doc. 31, p. 1-2.
15
Dugas v. Modular Quarters, Inc., 561 So. 2d 192, 200 (La. Ct. App. 1990).
16
Bank of America, 2017 WL 750400, at *7.
14

44369

granted if the party opposing the motion cannot demonstrate a likelihood of adequately
defending the motion.17
Rule 56(f) provides:
Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the
party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify
the party's opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or
may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions
to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.

Defendants fail to point to facts which they seek to discover which are “essential
to justify opposition”.18 Summary judgment prior to discovery is appropriate where, as
here, the record discloses there are no genuine issues as to any material fact and the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.19 The court in Washington
assumed that the nonmovant’s request for discovery in a supplemental memorandum
constituted a request for a Rule 56(f) continuance.20 However, the court reiterated that
this rule “may not be invoked by the mere assertion that discovery is incomplete; the
opposing party must demonstrate how the additional time will enable him to rebut the
movant’s allegations of no genuine issue of fact.”21
In the matter before the Court, Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of an
obligation to pay as evidenced in the Promissory Note and Guaranty. The Defendants fail
to articulate any genuine issue of material fact. The Defendants have not come forward
with any factual basis for a defense; nor have they explained, with specificity, which facts
they hope to produce through reasonable discovery that would overcome the motion for

17

Washington v. Allstate Ins. Co., 901 F.2d 1281 (5th Cir. 1990).
FRCP, Rule 56
19
Id. at 1286.
20
Id. at 1285-86.
21
Id. at 1286.
18

44369

summary judgment. Defendants fail to demonstrate that prolonging litigation while the
Defendants commence a lengthy discovery would produce evidence that is likely to result
in a different outcome. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment22 is
hereby GRANTED. The Plaintiff shall submit a proposed Order in conformance with the
Court’s Ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on March 5, 2018.

S
JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

22

Rec. Doc. 26.

44369