MMI Textiles, Inc. v. Short Bark Industries, Inc.

Filing 11

Memorandum of Opinion and Order: This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff, MMI Textiles, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10 ). The motion is unopposed. The motion is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. Plaintiff is ent itled to summary judgment on counts one and two of the complaint. The Court sua sponte grants summary judgment in favor of defendant with respect to count three. Plaintiff is to file a motion for attorneys' fees and interest within 14 days of the entry of this Order. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 5/10/17. (LC,S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

MMI Textiles, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
Short Bank Industries, Inc.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16 CV 2752
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff, MMI Textiles, Inc.’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 10). The motion is unopposed. This is an action on account. For the reasons
that follow, the motion is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. Plaintiff is entitled to
summary judgment on counts one and two of the complaint. The Court sua sponte grants
summary judgment in favor of defendant with respect to count three. Plaintiff is to file a motion
for attorneys’ fees and interest within 14 days of the entry of this Order.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff, MMI Textiles, Inc., brings this lawsuit against defendant, Short Bank
1

Industries, Inc., alleging that defendant purchased textile products from plaintiff on an invoiced
basis and failed to pay for them. Plaintiff provides the declaration from its accountant
demonstrating that the outstanding balance owed by defendant totals $490,264.67. Plaintiff filed
this lawsuit asserting three claims for relief. Count one is a claim for breach of contract and
count two is an action on account. Count three is a claim for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff moves
for summary judgment on all counts and defendant does not oppose the motion.
Upon review, the Court finds that the undisputed evidence demonstrates that plaintiff is
entitled to summary judgment on counts one and two. Defendant offers no opposition to
plaintiff’s argument and evidence establishing that the parties entered into contracts and that
defendant breached those contracts by failing to pay for the items it received. Nor does
defendant offer any opposition to plaintiff’s evidence regarding the amount owed on account.
For these reasons plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on counts one and two. In addition,
plaintiff notes that the invoices provide that plaintiff is entitled to interest and attorneys’ fees in
the event plaintiff is forced to use a collection service. Defendant does not dispute that these
additional fees are owed. Accordingly, the Court finds that summary judgment is warranted on
this issue. Within 14 days of the entry of this Order, plaintiff is to submit via separate motion a
detailed account of the fees and interest it seeks.
The Court finds, however, that plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment with respect
to count three. Count three is a claim for unjust enrichment. It is well-settled that a claim for
unjust enrichment will not lie in the face of a valid and enforceable contract. Ullmann v. May, 72
N.E.2d 63 (Ohio 1947), paragraph four of the syllabus. See also, Joseph Oldsmobile/Nissan, Inc.
v. Tom Harrigan Oldsmobile, Inc., 1995 WL 276804 (Ohio App. 2nd Dist. May 10, 1995) (citing

2

Williams v. Goodyear Aircraft Corp., 85 N.E.2d 601 (Ohio App. 9th Dist. 1948)); City of
Cincinnati v.Cincinnati Reds, 483 N.E.2d 1181 (Ohio App. 1st Dist. 1984)). Having concluded
that a valid and enforceable contract exists governing the subject matter at issue, the Court finds
that a claim for unjust enrichment does not lie against defendant. As such, the Court sua sponte
grants summary judgment in favor of defendant on count three.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff, MMI Textiles, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment
is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on
counts one and two of the complaint. The Court sua sponte grants summary judgment in favor
of defendant with respect to count three. Plaintiff is to file a motion for attorneys’ fees and
interest within 14 days of the entry of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge
Dated: 5/10/17

3