Maverick Tube Corporation v. A&H Transportation et al

Filing 287

ORDER re 277 granting Motion for Summary Judgment filed by ROAD MASTERS POWER TRANSPORT, LLC. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 9/20/2013. (Anderson, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

MAVERICK TUBE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
A&H TRANSPORTATION, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 11-2774-STA-tmp

ORDER GRANTING ROADMASTERS POWER TRANSPORT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is Defendant Roadmasters Power Transport, LLC’s (“Roadmasters”)
Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. # 277-3, Attachment to Roadmaster’s Motion for Leave to
File Summary Judgment Motion), filed August 19, 2013. Plaintiff Maverick Tube Corporation
has indicated that it does not oppose this Motion (Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Deadline for
Pretrial Conference and Trial, D.E. # 280). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS
Roadmasters’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that a party is entitled to summary
judgment if it “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”1 If a party fails to address another party’s assertions of
fact, a court may grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials show the

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Canderm
Pharmacal, Ltd. v. Elder Pharms., Inc., 862 F.2d 597, 601 (6th Cir. 1988).
1

movant is so entitled.2 In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.3 As a result, the “judge may not
make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.”4 When the moving party supports the
motion with documentary proof such as depositions and affidavits, the nonmoving party may not
rest on his pleadings, but must present some “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.”5 It is not sufficient “simply [to] show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the
material facts.”6 These facts must be more than a scintilla of evidence and must meet the
standard of whether a reasonable juror could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the
nonmoving party is entitled to a verdict.7 When determining if summary judgment is
appropriate, a court should ask “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to
require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter
of law.”8 A court must enter summary judgment “against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

3

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

4

Adams v. Metiva, 31 F.3d 375, 379 (6th Cir. 1994).

5

Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.

6

Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586.

7

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).

8

Id. at 251-52.
2

party will bear the burden of proof at trial.9 In the Sixth Circuit, “this requires the nonmoving
party to ‘put up or shut up’ [on] the critical issues of [her] asserted causes of action.”10
Roadmasters introduces several invoices as evidence of a claim in the amount of
$6,800.00.11 The invoices show two totals of $3,400.00 each.12 Since Plaintiff does not object to
Roadmasters’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court accepts Roadmasters’s factual
allegations as true. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Roadmasters’s Motion for Summary
Judgment in the amount of $6,800.00

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: September 20, 2013.

9

Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.

10

Lord v. Saratoga Capital, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 840, 857 (W.D. Tenn. 1995) (citing Street
v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1478 (6th Cir. 1989)).
11

(Invoices, D.E. # 277-5).

12

(Id.).
3