Emerald Coast Finest Produce Company, Inc. v. Sunrise Fresh Produce, LLC et al

Filing 224

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 111 Motion for Summary Judgment; and finding as moot Plaintiff's 113 Motion to Stay Proceedings, etc. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on December 16, 2015 (dsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
EMERALD COAST FINEST PRODUCE
COMPANY, INC.
V.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-166-KS-MTP

SUNRISE FRESH PRODUCE, LLC, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff, Emerald Coast Finest Produce Company, Inc., (“Emerald Coast”), filed
a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [111], arguing that the Court “must apply
Florida law to the issues of duty, breach of duty, coverage amounts, and all other issues
raised regarding the procurement and/or application of the Alterra Policy . . . .” Emerald
Coast also filed a Motion to Stay [111] consideration of the other pending dispositive
motions until it had addressed the choice of law question.
“A federal court siting in diversity follows the choice of law rules of the state in
which it sits.” Sorrels Steel Co., Inc. v. Great Southwest Corp., 906 F.2d 158, 167 (5th Cir.
1990). Under Mississippi law, a choice of law analysis is only necessary if there is a “true
conflict between the laws of the two states, each having an interest in the litigation.” S.C.
Ins. Co. v. Keymon, 974 So. 2d 226, 230 (Miss. 2008). If there is a true conflict between
the laws of two states, Mississippi courts address “choice of law issues by applying the
following steps: (1) determine whether the laws at issue are substantive or procedural;
(2) if substantive, classify the laws as either tort, property, or contract; and (3) look to the
relevant section of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws.” Hartford Underwriters
Ins. Co. v. Found. Health Servs., 524 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2008). The type of law will

determine the factors considered by the Court. Compare Ellis v. Trustmark Builders,
Inc., 625 F.3d 222, 226 (5th Cir. 2010) (applying Section 145 of the Restatement (Second)
of Conflict of Laws to tort claims), to Fortune v. Taylor Fortune Grp., LLC, No. 15-60009,
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13788, at *6 (5th Cir. Aug. 4, 2015) (applying Section 188 of the
Restatement to contract claims).
Emerald Coast provided only two pages of argument in its initial brief.1 Although
it asserted five different causes of action sounding in both contract and tort against three
different defendants, it failed to conduct a separate choice of law analysis for each claim.
See Hartford, 524 F.3d at 593. In fact, Emerald Coast did not even argue – much less
demonstrate – that there is a “true conflict between the laws of” Florida and Mississippi
as to each claim, which is a prerequisite for engaging in a choice-of-law analysis.
Keymon, 974 So. 2d at 230. Emerald Coast also failed to address the effect, if any, of the
choice of law provision within its Lease Agreement [45-3] with Defendant Sunrise Fresh
Produce, LLC. In the absence of sufficient briefing, the Court declines to consider the
choice of law question.
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
[111] without prejudice, and it denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay [113] as moot.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 16th day of December, 2015.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The Court will not consider arguments raised by Emerald Coast for the first
time in its reply brief. In re Robinson, 777 F.3d 792, 798 n. 6 (5th Cir. 2015).

2