FOOD TEAM INTERNATIONAL, LTD. v. UNILINK, LLC et al

Filing 69

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART., ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 5/17/2012. 5/18/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FOOD TEAM INTERNATIONAL, LTD,
Plaintiff
vs.
UNILINK, LLC,
GARY GREGORY,
MARC BEHAEGAL,
AKBAR BOUTARABI,
MIKE MOORE, and
PENNSYLVANIA FOOD GROUP, LLC,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action
No. 10-cv-03584

O R D E R
NOW, this 17th day of May, 2012, upon consideration of
the following documents:
(1)

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed
December 10, 2011 (Document 39);1 together with,
(a)

(b)

Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Material
Facts in Support of Its Motion for Summary
Judgment (Document 39-2);

(c)

Exhibits A through I (Documents 39-3 through
-11, respectively); and

(d)

1

Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of
Its Motion for Summary Judgment
(Document 39-1);

[Amended] Exhibit D filed January 25, 2012
(Document 49);

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was filed twice: first on
December 9, 2012 as Document 38 without a supporting memorandum or exhibits,
and again on December 10, 2012 as Document 39 together with the supporting
memorandum and exhibits listed here. Both copies of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Documents 38 and 39) are identical.

(2)

Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, which opposition was
filed January 3, 2012 (Document 45); together
with,
(a)

Declaration of Sue A. Haar, with Exhibits, in
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment (Document 45-1);

(b)

Declaration of Defendant Gary Gregory, with
Exhibits, in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
for Summary Judgment (Document 45-2);

(c)

Declaration of Mark C.H. Mandell[,] with
Exhibits, in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
for Summary Judgment (Document 45-3);

(d)

Defendants' Response to Statement of Material
Facts Alleged by Plaintiff to be Undisputed
Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56.1 (Document 45-4);
and

(e)

Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition
to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment(Document 46), and
Appendix 1 [Opinion of Judge Susan
Webber Wright in Electrocraft Arkansas,
Inc. v. Super Electric Motors, LTD,
2010 WL 3307461 (E.D.Ark., Western
Division, August 19, 2010)];

(3)

Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Response to
Motion for Summary Judgment, which reply was filed
February 3, 2012 (Document 52); and

(4)

Defendants’ Surreply Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, which surreply was filed
February 3, 2012 (Document 53), together with,
(a)

Declaration of Mark C. H. Mandell[,] with
Exhibit, in Further Response to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 54);
and

- ii -

(b)

Declaration of Sue A. Haar, With Exhibit, in
Further Opposition to Motion for Summary
Judgment (Document 55);

(5)

Complaint filed July 21, 2010 (Document 1);

(6)

Answer to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaims filed August 17, 2010 (Document 4);
and

(7)

Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Counterclaims
filed September 15, 2010 (Document 12);

after oral argument held February 3, 2012; and for the reasons
expressed in the accompanying Opinion,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted to the extent that plaintiff seeks
summary judgment in its favor concerning the unpaid balance due
for the produce billed on invoices 29CFF04115, 29CF01017 and
29CFF02901.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted to the extent that plaintiff seeks
contractual interest at the rate of 1.5% per month on the
balances due on invoices 29CFF04115 and 29CFF01017.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is denied to the extent that it seeks
contractual attorneys’ fees in connection with its efforts to
collect the amounts due on invoices 29CFF04115 and 29CFF01017.

- iii -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted to the extent that plaintiff seeks a
declaratory ruling that defendant Unilink, LLC, accepted, and has
a duty to pay for, invoices 28CFF01019, 29CFF04111, 29CFF01008,
29CFF01012, 29CFF01014 and 29CFF01015.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor
of plaintiff Food Team International, LTD and against defendants
Unilink, LLC; Gary Gregory; Marc Behaegal; and Akbar Boutarabi in
the sum of $104,843.37, as follows:
(A)

in the sum of $44,452.60 for the unpaid balance
due for produce billed on invoices 29CFF04115,
29CFF01017 and 29CFF02901; and

(B)

in the sum of $29,294.10 for contractual interest
on the balances due on invoices 29CFF04115 and
29CFF01017;

(C)

in the sum of $26,115.70 for the unpaid balance
due for produce billed on invoice 29CFF02901; and

(D)

in the sum of $4,980.97 for statutory interest on
the balance due on invoice 29CFF02901.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor
of plaintiff Food Team International, LTD and against defendant
Unilink, LLC in the sum of $46,608.20 for the unpaid balance due
on invoices 29CFF01008 and 29CFF01015.

- iv -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor
of defendants Unilink, LLC; Gary Gregory; Marc Behaegal; Akbar
Boutarabi; Mike Moore; and Pennsylvania Food Group, LLC on
plaintiff’s claims for contractual attorneys’ fees in connection
with plaintiff’s efforts to collect the amounts due on invoices
29CFF04115 and 29CFF01017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ James Knoll Gardner
James Knoll Gardner
United States District Judge

- v -