Venetian Casino Resort, LLC v. Enwave Las Vegas LLC
Filing
64
ORDER denying without prejudice 39 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; ORDER denying as moot 62 Objection/Appeal Magistrate Judge Order/Ruling LR IB 3-1; this case is REFERRED to Judge Albregts for a MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. The par ties obligation to file a stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order (ECF No. 57) is STAYED until 10 days after the conclusion of that settlement conference. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/16/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM) Modified on 11/16/2020 (EDS).
Case 2:19-cv-01197-JCM-DJA Document 64 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
VENETIAN CASINO RESORT, LLC,
8
Plaintiff(s),
9
10
Case No. 2:19-CV-1197 JCM (DJA)
ORDER
v.
ENWAVE LAS VEGAS, LLC,
11
Defendant(s).
12
13
Presently before the court is defendant-counterclaimant Enwave Las Vegas, LLC’s
14
(“Enwave”) motion for partial summary judgment (“MPSJ”) on its breach of contract
15
counterclaim.
16
(“VCR”) and counterdefendant Interface Group-Nevada, Inc. (“Interface”) responded in
17
opposition (ECF No. 44) to which Enwave replied (ECF No. 46).
(ECF No. 39).
Plaintiff-counterdefendant Venetian Casino Resort, LLC
18
Also before the court is VCR and Interface’s objection to Magistrate Judge Daniel J.
19
Albregts’s order staying discovery pending resolution of Enwave’s MPSJ. (ECF No. 62).
20
Enwave responded in opposition. (ECF No. 63).
21
I.
Background
22
This is a contract dispute over the rights to purchase and own a thermal energy
23
production facility. The “crux of this case” is interpreting the Third Amendment to the three
24
original energy services agreements (“ESAs”). (ECF No. 39 at 10). Enwave contends that
25
the Third Amendment leaves intact the rights of VCR, Interface, and GCS to purchase their
26
Divided Share of the Central Plant and Other Facilities. (Id.). That is, Interface and VCR
27
are contractually obligated to pay their Divided Shares—$3,187,616 and $6,558,128
28
respectively—upon the expiration of the Renewal Term in exchange for Enwave conveying
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Case 2:19-cv-01197-JCM-DJA Document 64 Filed 11/16/20 Page 2 of 6
1
to them their Divided Shares of the Central Plant. (Id. at 9–10). Interface and VCR are
2
affiliated and Enwave and GCS are affiliated.
3
VCR contends it has the “exclusive right to sole ownership of the Central Plant.”
4
(ECF No. 44 at 2). Enwave has a contractual obligation to convey the Central Plant to VCR
5
and VCR only in exchange for the full $13,064,000 Purchase Option Payment. (Id.). The
6
Third Amendment is silent on how joint ownership would work and the court should not
7
“create its own joint ownership provision.” (Id. at 4). The Divided Shares merely “allocate
8
cost burdens,” they do not allocate or divide ownership. (Id. at 12).
9
anticipatory breach of contract claim against Enwave. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 19–27). Enwave
10
VCR asserts an
asserts its own contractual counterclaims against VCR and Interface. (ECF No. 13).
11
On November 26, 2019, VCR and Interface moved to dismiss Enwave’s
12
counterclaims. (ECF No. 24). In the alternative, they asked for summary judgment on their
13
anticipatory breach of contract claim because “Enwave refused to accept full contractual
14
payment and because all of Enwave’s purported damages are self-inflicted harms designed to
15
obtain a non-existent purchase option for its sister company [GCS].” (Id. at 2).
16
On June 5, 2020, this court dismissed only Enwave’s declaratory judgment
17
counterclaim, allowing its breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and bad faith counterclaims
18
to proceed. (ECF No. 38). This court also found that it was “premature” to convert VCR
19
and Interface’s motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment:
20
21
22
23
Enwave advances a plausible reading of the contract such that there could be a
dispute as to its meaning. (ECF No. 13). But it does not appear discovery has
commenced in this case. The parties have not filed a proposed discovery plan
or scheduling order. It is premature for the court to impose a summary
judgment standard when the parties have not even begun exchanging
information through discovery. Accordingly, the court declines to convert
plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.
24
(Id. at 7–8). Less than two weeks later, Enwave moved for partial summary judgment on its
25
26
own breach of contract counterclaim. (ECF No. 39). VCR and Interface filed an answer to
Enwave’s counterclaims three days later. (ECF No. 41).
27
On September 3, 2020, Enwave moved to stay discovery pending the resolution of its
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
MPSJ. (ECF No. 47). Enwave noted that “an entire year passed from the date the Venetian
-2-
Case 2:19-cv-01197-JCM-DJA Document 64 Filed 11/16/20 Page 3 of 6
1
commenced this action to the date it served its discovery requests.” (Id. at 3–4). And VCR’s
2
discovery requests are unnecessary because Enwave’s MPSJ “can be decided without any
3
discovery as the motion seeks the determination of a purely legal issue and the contracts at
4
issue are unambiguous.” (Id. at 14). Magistrate Judge Albregts granted a stay of discovery:
5
After considering all of the arguments raised by the parties, the Court finds
that Defendant has carried its burden of demonstrating that a stay of discovery
is warranted in this case. Having taken a preliminary peek at the Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39), the Court is not convinced that
Plaintiff’s claims will survive dismissal. The issues before the Court in the
pending dispositive motion do not require further discovery as it has been fully
briefed. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff has requested further discovery
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d), but it is not persuaded that such discovery is
necessary for the District Judge to resolve the motion. Additionally, discovery
is expensive and resolving issues or limiting claims at the earliest possible
stage of litigation is important.
6
7
8
9
10
11
(ECF No. 57 at 3). VCR and Interface object to the discovery stay. (ECF No. 62). And in
12
13
opposing Enwave’s MPSJ, VCR and Interface ask the court to deny the motion without
prejudice while the parties engage in discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d). (ECF No. 44 at 26).
14
II.
15
16
Legal Standard
If the party opposing summary judgment shows by “affidavit or declaration that, for
specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1)
17
defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or
18
19
to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(2). “The
requesting party must show: (1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts it hopes to
20
elicit from further discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; [and] (3) the sought-after facts are
21
22
essential to oppose summary judgment.” Family Home and Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home
Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008). The party opposing summary
23
judgment must show that the sought-after facts would preclude summary judgment. Blough
24
v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Chance v. Pac-Tel
25
Teletrac Inc., 242 F.3d 1151, 1161 n.6 (9th Cir. 2001)); Tatum v. City & Cnty. of San
26
Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2006).
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
A Rule 56(d) request should be granted when “a summary judgment motion is filed so
early in the litigation, before a party has had any realistic opportunity to pursue discovery
-3-
Case 2:19-cv-01197-JCM-DJA Document 64 Filed 11/16/20 Page 4 of 6
1
relating to its theory of the case,” that a non-moving party cannot oppose summary judgment.
2
Burlington Northern Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
3
Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2003). However, mere temporal proximity of a
4
motion for summary judgment and start of discovery is not sufficient to grant a request if
5
additional discovery would be futile or if the parties already know of or agree on the facts.
6
See generally id.
7
“[A]lthough [Rule 56(d)] facially gives judges the discretion to disallow discovery
8
when the non-moving party cannot yet submit evidence supporting its opposition, the
9
Supreme Court has restated the rule as requiring, rather than merely permitting, discovery
10
‘where the nonmoving party has not had the opportunity to discover information that is
11
essential to its opposition.’ ” Metabolife Intern., Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832, 846 (9th Cir.
12
2001) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 n.5 (1986)) (emphasis
13
added).
14
III.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Discussion
VCR asserts that the following sought-after facts would preclude summary judgment
for Enwave:
As such, discovery should proceed to decipher: (i) the conflicting
interpretations of the Third Amendment; (ii) the long term relationship and
multiple negotiations between VCR, Interface, and GCS and its predecessors;
(iii) those parties understanding as to VCR’s right to sole ownership of the
Central Plant; (iv) the negotiations and intent of the ESAs and Third
Amendment; (v) VCR’s substantial investment into the initial construction,
improvements, and maintenance of the Central Plant through the ESA term;
(vi) Enwave’s President and COO’s written admission as to VCR’s
interpretation of the parties’ agreements and long-term understanding as to
VCR’s right to sole ownership, and (vii) the intent and understanding of the
REA as applicable to VCR, Interface, GCS, and the Central Plant.
(ECF No. 44 at 941).
24
In opposing VCR’s Rule 56(d) request, Enwave treats it as a foregone conclusion that
25
the contract at issue is unambiguous and that it offers the only reasonable interpretation of it.
26
(ECF No. 46 at 18). If a contract is unambiguous, “its terms must be given their plain
27
meaning and the contract must be enforced as written; the court may not admit any other
28
evidence of the parties’ intent because the contract expresses their intent.” Ringle v. Bruton,
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-4-
Case 2:19-cv-01197-JCM-DJA Document 64 Filed 11/16/20 Page 5 of 6
1
86 P.3d 1032, 1039 (Nev. 2004); see also State ex rel. List v. Courtesy Motors, 590 P.2d 163,
2
165 (Nev. 1979). However, summary judgment is not proper when a contract is ambiguous,
3
because the court must then rely on extrinsic evidence to resolve the ambiguity. Dickenson
4
v. Satte, Dep't of Wildlife, 877 P.3d 1059, 1061 (Nev. 1994). A contract is ambiguous if it
5
may be reasonably interpreted in more than one way. Galardi v. Naples Polaris, LLC, 301
6
P.3d 364, 366 (Nev. 2013).
7
VCR should be able to oppose summary judgment with the extrinsic evidence it seeks
8
in discovery. Namely, discovery related to the parties’ understanding of the contractually
9
defined term Divided Share, especially in the absence of any clear joint ownership provision
10
governing this crucial common asset, could preclude summary judgment for Enwave. (ECF
11
No. 44 at 938). The core of the dispute is whether the Divided Shares are cost allocations as
12
well as ownership allocations. Compare (ECF No. 44 at 10), with (ECF No. 46 at 13).
13
Furthermore, discovery related to “the long term relationship and multiple
14
negotiations between VCR, Interface, and GCS and its predecessors” could also preclude
15
summary judgment for Enwave. (ECF No. 44 at 941). When the original ESAs were
16
executed in 1997, all three contractually defined Buyers were affiliates of VCR. (Id. at 11).
17
Today, one of the three Buyers, GCS, is an affiliate of Enwave, the seller of the Central
18
Plant. (Id.). The Third Amendment—especially its contractual definition of only VCR as
19
Buyer—may be reasonably interpreted to reflect this development.
20
In contrast, any discovery related to the REA will likely be unhelpful in resolving
21
ambiguities because, although the REA is referenced in the Third Amendment, Enwave is
22
not a party to it. (ECF No. 39-5). The REA governs VCR, Interface, and GCS’s rights and
23
obligations among each other and not Enwave’s obligation to convey the Central Plant.
24
(ECF No. 37 at 7).
25
In sum, granting VCR’s Rule 56(d) request is not authorizing a “futile search.” Allen
26
v. United States, No. CV 03-01358-DAE-RJJ, 2012 WL 5497887, at *9 (D. Nev. Nov. 13,
27
2012).
28
interpretation of a potentially ambiguous contract. After all, this court declined to consider
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
It permits VCR to gather essential extrinsic evidence to offer an opposing
-5-
Case 2:19-cv-01197-JCM-DJA Document 64 Filed 11/16/20 Page 6 of 6
1
summary judgment on VCR’s breach of contract claim without any discovery and now does
2
the same on Enwave’s MPSJ on its breach of contract counterclaim. Cf. Williams v. Yuan
3
Chen, NO. S–10–1292 CKD P, 2011 WL 4354533, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2011) (denying
4
a motion for summary judgment where the opposing party had not yet filed an answer and
5
the court had not issued a discovery order).
6
Nevertheless, the court and the parties are obliged to “secure the just, speedy, and
7
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. To that end,
8
the court orders a pre-discovery early settlement conference with the magistrate judge. See
9
LR 1-1(b); LR IB 1-7(b); James v. Alessi, No. 218CV01398JADEJY, 2020 WL 5751561, at
10
*7 (D. Nev. Sept. 24, 2020) (ordering a pretrial settlement conference after ruling on cross-
11
motions for summary judgment).
12
IV.
Conclusion
13
Accordingly,
14
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Enwave’s motion for
15
partial summary judgment (ECF No. 39) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without
16
prejudice.
17
18
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that VCR and Interface’s objection to a stay of
discovery (ECF No. 62) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot.
19
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REFERRED to Judge Albregts for a
20
MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. The parties’ obligation to file a stipulated
21
proposed discovery plan and scheduling order (ECF No. 57) is STAYED until 10 days after
22
the conclusion of that settlement conference.
23
24
25
DATED November 16, 2020.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-6-
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?