K&B Inc v. Fedex Corporate Services
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 18 Motion for Summary Judgment ; granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion for Summary Judgment - granted as to claims 2-4 and denied as to claim 1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba on 02/17/2012. (asp) Modified on 2/21/2012 ; added granted as to claims 2-4 and denied as to claim 1 to docket text (asp).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
K & B, INC.
Case No. 2:10-cv-01256-SA
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,
Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba
Defendant.
Before the court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff, K&B, Inc.
(“K&B”)(Doc. 18), and a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant, Federal
Express Corporation (“FedEx”)(Doc. 22). Both parties assert that summary judgment should be
granted because no genuine dispute as to any material fact exists and they are entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ pleadings and the record in this case, and having
heard oral arguments, the court concludes that a genuine dispute exists regarding material facts;
therefore, the Court denies K&B’s motion and grants FedEx’s motion in part but denies it in part.
ANALYSIS
Summary judgment is appropriate only “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). The Court must view all evidence and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Burke v. Utah Transit Auth. & Local 382,
462 F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir. 2006).
K&B’s summary judgment motion, which was filed on August 5, 2011, rests on four
claims: (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, (3) negligent misrepresentation and detrimental
reliance, and (4) breach of good faith and fair dealing. See Pl.’s Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19). In response,
FedEx argues that claims 2-4 are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 41713.
See Def.’s Memorandum in Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and In Support
of Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment at 3-4 (Doc. 23). During the February 7,
2012 oral argument on the summary judgment motions, K&B conceded that all claims except
breach of contract were preempted. See Official Transcript of the February 7, 2012 Hearing on
Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (hereafter “Tr.__”) at 6. Based on that concession, the
court grants FedEx’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment as to the above-specified claims 2-4.
Also at the February 7th hearing, FedEx’s counsel conceded breach of contract, Tr. at 12,
but argued that K&B never reconciled the documents submitted in their claim with the actual cost
of the items shipped, id. at 14. Specifically, FedEx acknowledges having received K&B’s receipts
showing items purchased for $29, id. at 13, and an invoice showing 2300 items valued at $4 each
and sold to the consignee of shipment, id.at 12, but alleges that this invoice “bore no relationship
to the items that were allegedly lost,” id. at 13, and that they “have never been provided with an
accounting or any documentation of the specific items or the specific number of items that were
lost and what the cost to K&B was of those items,” id. at 14. In response, K&B argues that they
submitted documentation showing FedEx they were purchasing phones for $29, but shipping only
the SIM cards. Id. at 18. K&B contends that they “submitted everything, and it’s just not enough
[for the defendants].” Id.
2
As presented by the parties at oral argument, this case comes down to a disagreement over
whether certain documents adequately demonstrate exactly what items were being shipped in the
lost packages and what their cost was to Plaintiff. This disagreement constitutes a genuine dispute
as to a material fact, and thus precludes the court from entering summary judgment. See Fed. R.
Civ. Pro. 56(a); see also SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 578 F.3d 1201, 1215 (10th Cir.
2009)(“[W]hen conflicting evidence is presented such that the ambiguities in a contract could
legitimately be resolved in favor of either party, it is for the ultimate finder of fact - not the court
on summary judgment - to interpret the contract.”).
CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that K&B’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that FedEx’s Cross
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 22) is GRANTED as to claims 2-4, as specified above, but
DENIED as to the breach of contract claim (claim 1).
DATED this 17th day of February, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
Samuel Alba
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?