Progress Solar Solutions, LLC v. Fire Protection, Inc. et al

Filing 186

ORDER granting 169 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge James C. Dever III on 8/12/2021. Sent to Jeffrey Van Valkenburgh at 5904 A Warner Ave. #170 Huntington Beach, CA 92649, Michael D Long and Solar Mod Systems, Inc. at 3948 Legacy Drive Suite 106-155 Plano, TX 75023, and Mikel Bills at 11737 Belmont Place Chino, CA 91710 via US Mail. (Sellers, N.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF'NORTII CAROLINA
WESTERN DMSION
PROGRESS SOLAR SOLUTIONS,
LLC,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
FIRE PROTECTION, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )

No. 5:17-CV-152-D

PROGRESS SOLAR SOLUTIONS, . )
LLC, et al.,
),
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
:MICHAEL D. LONG, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )

No. 5:19-CV-5-D

ORDER
On February 26, 2021, Progress Solar Solutions, LLC ("Progress Solar'' or ''plaintiff'') moved

for partial summary judgment [D.E. 169] and filed a statement of undisputed material facts [D.E.
170], a brief in support [D.E. 171], and an appendix in support [D.E. 172]. The court notified
defendants about Progress Solar's motion for partial summary judgment, the response deadline, and ·
the need for the response to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Civil Rules
7.2 and 56.1. See [D.E. 173, 179].

On March 8, 2021, defendant Mikel Bills ("Bills") responded in opposition [D.E. 176], but
the response did not comply with Local Civil Rule 56.1. See id.; see also [D.E. 177]. On March 9,

Case 5:17-cv-00152-D Document 186 Filed 08/12/21 Page 1 of 3

2021, defendant Michael Long ("Long") responded in opposition, but the response did not comply
with Local Civil Rule 56.1. See [D.E. 178]. On March 16, 2021, Long supplemented his response
in opposition. See [D.E. 180]. On March 26, 2021, Bills supplemented his response in opposition.
See [D.E. 183]. Neither supplement complied with Local Civil Rule 56.1.
On March 29, 2021, Progress Solar replied. See [D.E. 184]. Progress Solar correctly notes

that Long and Bills's failure to comply with Local Civil Rule 56.1 means that Progress Solar's
statement of material facts is "deemed admitted." E.D.N.C. Civ. R. 56.l(a)(2); see Felton v.
Moneysworth Linen Serv., Inc., 295 F. Supp. 3d 595, 597 n.1 (E.D.N.C. 2018); Howard v. Coll. of
the Albemarle, 262 F. Supp. 3d 322, 329 n.1 (E.D.N.C. 2017), aff'd, 697 F. App'x 257 (4th Cir.
2017) (per curiam) (unpublished); United States v. Compassionate Home Care Servs., Inc., No. 7: 14CV-113-D, 2017 WL 1030706,at*l (E.D.N.C.Mar.15,2017)(unpublished). Moreover,andinany
event, Progress Solar' s evidence demonstrates its entitlement to relief, and Long and Bills' s responses
do not alter this conclusion. See [D.E. 184] 4-15. Accordingly, the court grants Progress Solar's
motion for partial i:inmmary judgment.
In sum, the court GRANTS plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment [D.E. 169]. The
court AWARDS plaintiff summary judgment on the following claims in the 2017 action: (1) breach
of nondisclosure agreement against Long, SMS, and FPI; (2) unfair and deceptive trade practices
against all defendants; (3) unfair competition against all defendants; (4) tortious interference with
plaintiff's business relationships and prospective economic advantage against all defendants; (5) false
association against all defendants; and (6) civil conspiracy against all defendants. The court
AWARDS plaintiff summary judgment on the following claims in the 2019 action: (1) breach of
joint confidentiality agreement against Long and SMS,.and (2) civil conspiracy against all defendants.

2
Case 5:17-cv-00152-D Document 186 Filed 08/12/21 Page 2 of 3

The court will determine the remedy (including damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs) in a subsequent proceeding.
The parties shall confer about a proposed schedule to complete this long-pending case and
submit a proposed schedule not later than August 26, 2021. The court will have a United States
Magistrate Judge host a settlement conference if the parties desire. The submission shall state
whether the parties would like a settlement conference.
SO ORDERED. This ..1J::.. day of August 2021.

Jsc.DEVERID

United States District Judge

3
Case 5:17-cv-00152-D Document 186 Filed 08/12/21 Page 3 of 3