Sencore Inc v. Wireless Acquisitions LLC
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 22 Plaintiff Sencore Inc's Motion for Summary Judgment. If Sencore seeks attorney fees, it must do so in a separate motion by 5/25/2018. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 4/26/2018) (aaa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SENCORE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WIRELESS ACQUISITIONS, LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-0038-B
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Sencore, Inc.’s (Sencore) motion for summary judgment. Doc.
22. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Sencore’s motion.
I.
BACKGROUND1
This is a breach-of-contract case. In April 2015, Sencore and Defendant Wireless
Acquisitions, LLC (Wireless) entered into an Authorized Reseller Agreement (Agreement) under
which Wireless obtained a license to purchase and resell Sencore’s broadcast equipment. Doc. 22,
Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. & Br. in Supp.,5. The Agreement obligates Sencore to fulfill Wireless’s
purchase orders and requires Wireless to pay for the products it requests. Id. Shortly after obtaining
the license, Wireless executed multiple purchase orders, which Sencore fulfilled by creating and
delivering the products. Id. at 5–7. But Wireless did not pay Sencore for all of the products it
received. Id. at 7. Sencore claims Wireless still owes $75,910.08 for the products, plus $7473.69 in
1
The Court draws its factual history from the pleadings and the summary-judgment record.
Because Wireless has not responded to the motion for summary judgment, the facts are undisputed.
-1-
default interest, for a total of $83,383.77. Doc. 22-1, Pl.’s App., 5. After Sencore filed this suit, the
parties entered into a settlement agreement; Wireless agreed to pay a certain amount of money to
Sencore within ninety days to settle Sencore’s claims. Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. & Br. in Supp., 3–4.
But Wireless never paid. Id. at 4. So in November 2017, Sencore moved for summary judgment on
its breach-of-contract claim. Doc. 22. Wireless has not responded to Sencore’s motion. Sencore’s
motion is ripe for resolution.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Courts must grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). “A motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply because there is no opposition.”
Hibernia Nat’l Bank v. Administracion Cent. Sociedad Anonima, 776 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th Cir. 1985).
“Nevertheless, if no response to the motion for summary judgment has been filed, the court may find
as undisputed the statement of facts in the motion for summary judgment.” Morgan v. Fed. Exp.
Corp., 114 F. Supp. 3d 434, 437 (S.D. Tex. 2015). District courts need not “sift through the record
in search of evidence to support a party’s opposition to summary judgment.” Skotak v. Tenneco Resins,
Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 915 n.7 (5th Cir. 1992).
III.
ANALYSIS
Sencore argues it is entitled to summary judgment on its breach-of-contract claim because
it is undisputed that Wireless agreed to pay Sencore to manufacture and deliver broadcasting
equipment; that Sencore manufactured and delivered equipment to Wireless; and that Wireless did
-2-
not pay Sencore for all of the equipment Wireless received. Doc. 22, Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. & Br.
in Supp., 2.Wireless has not responded to Sencore’s motion, so the only question before the Court
is whether Sencore is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the facts it has presented in its
motion. See Morgan, 114 F. Supp. 3d at 437; see also UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Long, 227 F.
Supp. 2d 609, 614 (N.D. Tex. 2002) (“Although the court may not enter a ‘default’ summary
judgment, it may accept the evidence submitted by [the movant] as undisputed.”).
To prevail on a breach-of-contract claim under Texas law, a plaintiff must prove: (1) there
was a valid contract; (2) plaintiff performed his or her obligations under the contract; (3) defendant
breached the contract; and (4) plaintiff suffered damages as a result of defendant’s breach. Smith Int’l,
Inc. v. Egle Grp., LLC, 490 F.3d 380, 387 (5th Cir. 2007).
Sencore’s uncontroverted evidence establishes as a matter of law that Wireless breached the
Agreement. The parties entered into the Agreement on April 15, 2015. Doc. 22-1, Pl.’s App., 7. The
Agreement requires Sencore to fulfill Wireless’s purchase orders and obligates Wireless to pay for the
products it requests. Id. at 11. Sencore fulfilled each purchase order Wireless submitted by
manufacturing and delivering broadcasting products to Wireless. Id. at 29,35,40. Wireless breached
the agreement by failing to pay for all the products it received, and Sencore has demonstrated that
it is entitled to $83,383.77 in damages. Id. at 5, 11.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Court GRANTS Sencore’s motion for summary judgment. Doc.
22. If Sencore seeks attorney fees, it must do so in a separate motion by May 25, 2018. Sencore
should attach to its motion for attorney fees a detailed record of actual time spent on this case.
-3-
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED: April 26, 2018.
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?