Sterling Equipment, Inc. v. Gibson et al

Filing 35

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered denying 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (RGS, law2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-11594-RGS
STERLING EQUIPMENT, INC.
v.
WENDY GIBSON and JOHN DOE NOS. 1-20
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
October 3, 2017
STEARNS, D.J.
Plaintiff Sterling Equipment, Inc. (SEI) asserts various tort claims
against a former employee, Wendy Gibson, alleging that she caused a
fraudulent transfer of company funds while serving as SEI’s controller. 1 The
Complaint alleges that Gibson, in concert with undisclosed and unidentified
co-conspirators, wired $198,000 from SEI’s Santander bank account to a
Latvian bank (also named as the beneficiary). SEI alleges that Gibson used
her access credentials to make the transfer, appropriated the funds for her

Specifically, the Counts listed in the Complaint are: Conversion
(Count 1), brought against both Gibson and John Doe defendants; Aiding
and Abetting Conversion (Count II), brought against both Gibson and John
Doe defendants; Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Breach of the Duty of Loyalty
(Count III), brought against Gibson; Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary
Duties and Duty of Loyalty (Count IV), brought against John Doe
defendants; and Fraud (Count V), brought against Gibson.
1

own use, and then took steps to cover up the fraud. Gibson has denied these
allegations, including in a sworn deposition, and has identified another SEI
employee as the likely culprit.
Because there remains a genuine dispute of fact as to who actually
effected the transfer of the funds – and because the answer to this question
turns on the credibility of Gibson and other individuals caught up in the case
– the court will deny SEI’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt # 22.
It is axiomatic that “[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the
evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury
functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a motion
for summary judgment or for a directed verdict.”

Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). See also Domínguez-Cruz v. Suttle
Caribe, Inc., 202 F.3d 424, 432 (1st Cir. 2000) (noting that “[a]t the
summary judgment stage . . . the court should not engage in credibility
assessments”).
In short, even where the facts as alleged indicate that “Something is
rotten in the state of Denmark,”2 it is not appropriate for the court on a
motion for summary judgment to assign blame so long as there remains a

William Shakespeare, Hamlet act 1, sc. 4 1036 (Shakespeare,
Complete Works, Tudor ed. 1951) (1603)
2
2

genuine dispute as to who is at fault. Whodunits, absent definitive proof, are
best left to the jury to parcel out.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, SEI’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
__________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3