Wai Feng Trading Co. LTD et al v. Quick Fitting, Inc.

Filing 249

ORDER adopting (230) Report and Recommendations; adopting (231) Report and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part (180) Motion for Summary Judgment in case 1:13-cv-00033-WES-PAS; granting in part and denying in part (253) Motion fo r Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part (254) Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part (255) Motion for Summary Judgment; denying (256) Motion for Summary Judgment; granting (257) Motion for Summary Judgm ent; granting in part and denying in part (259) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; adopting (318) Report and Recommendations; adopting (319) Report and Recommendations; terminating (334) Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court in case 1:13-cv-00056-WES-PAS. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 9/16/2019. Associated Cases: 1:13-cv-00033-WES-PAS, 1:13-cv-00056-WES-PAS(Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
WAI FENG TRADING CO., LTD. and
)
EFF MANUFACTORY CO., LTD.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
C.A. No. 13-033 WES
)
QUICK FITTING, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
)
consolidated with
QUICK FITTING, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
C.A. No. 13-056 WES
)
WAI FENG TRADING CO.,
)
LTD., ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan filed two Reports and
Recommendations in these consolidated cases.

See ECF Nos. 230,

231 (C.A. No. 13-033); ECF Nos. 318, 319 (C.A. No. 13-056).
parties subsequently filed various objections.

The

After reviewing

the relevant papers and law, the Court finds these objections
without merit, and therefore ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Reports and
Recommendations

as

they

are.

Furthermore,

all

objections

to

Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s subsequent Memoranda and Orders (e.g.,

ECF No. 246 in C.A. No. 13-33; ECF No. 334 in C.A. No. 13-056) are
overruled.
Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
Wai Feng parties’ summary judgment motion taking aim at (a) Count
IV of Quick Fitting’s counterclaims in C.A. No. 13-33, (b) Count
I of Quick Fitting’s operative complaint in C.A. No. 13-56, and
(c) the sufficiency of the evidence Quick Fitting presents on those
alleged breaches of contract. (ECF No. 255, C.A. No. 13-56). The
motion is granted as to aspects (a) and (b) but denied as to (c).
The Court denies Andrew Yung’s summary judgment motion challenging
Quick Fitting’s Count IX in C.A. No. 13-56. (ECF No. 256, C.A. No.
13-56). The Court grants EFF LLC’s motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 257, C.A. No. 13-56).
summary

judgment

challenging

The Wai Feng parties’ motion for
certain

state

law

claims

Quick

Fitting advances in C.A. No. 13-56, is granted in part and denied
in part. (ECF No. 254, C.A. No. 13-56). The Court grants the motion
as to fraud/misrepresentation (Count III) and defamation (Count
IV) and denies it as to misappropriation of trade secrets (Count
II), civil conspiracy (Count X), and injunctive relief (Count XI).
The

Court

grants

in

part

the

Wai

Feng

parties’

summary

judgment motion (ECF No. 180, C.A. No. 13-33; ECF No. 253, C.A.
No. 13-56) on Counts I and II of the C.A. No. 13-33 complaint,
resulting in judgment in Wai Feng Trading’s favor for the amount
of $432,611.47, plus prejudgment interest. Because the motion is
2

granted in Wai Feng Trading’s favor, the Court denies it as to EFF
Manufactory so that Quick Fitting does not pay its debt twice. The
Court also denies Quick Fitting’s corresponding motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 259, C.A. No. 13-56) on Counts I and II in the
C.A. No. 13-33 complaint as to the claims of Wai Feng Trading, but
grants it as to the claims of EFF Manufactory. Finally, the Court
grants in part and denies in part the Wai Feng parties’ remaining
summary judgment motion (ECF No. 254, C.A. No. 13-56); grants it
on Quick Fitting’s negligence claims in Count VI of its C.A. No.
13-56 complaint and Count II of its C.A. No. 13-33 counterclaims,
but denies it as to Quick Fitting’s defective product claims
alleged in Counts V, VII and VIII of its C.A. No. 13-56 complaint
and Counts I, III, and V of its C.A. No. 13-33 counterclaims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: September 16, 2019

3