United Capital Funding Corp. v. Ericsson Inc.

Filing 118

ORDER by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour granting Defendant Ericsson Inc.'s 99 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Plaintiff UCF's 113 Motion for Reconsideration and finding as moot Plaintiff UCF's 100 Motion to enlarge the discovery deadline. (PM)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

UNITED CAPITAL FUNDING CORP.,

10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
ERICSSON INC,
13

CASE NO. C15-0194 JCC
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND
MOOTING MOTION TO ENLARGE
DISCOVERY DEADLINE

Defendant.
14
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Ericsson Inc.’s motion for summary

15

16 judgment (Dkt. No. 99) and Plaintiff United Capital Funding Corp.’s (“UCF”) motion to enlarge
17 the discovery deadline (Dkt. No. 100) and motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 113). Having
18 thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument
19 unnecessary and hereby GRANTS Ericsson’s motion (Dkt. No. 99) and DENIES both of UCF’s
20

motions (Dkt. Nos. 100 and 113) for the reasons explained herein.

21
22
23

I.

BACKGROUND
The Court has already granted partial summary judgment in this matter for Ericsson (Dkt.

24 No. 98). In that order, the Court found as follows: Ericsson paid non-party Prithvi Solutions, Inc.
25 over $3 million under a services contract. (Dkt. No. 98 at 3.) Unbeknownst to Ericsson, Prithvi
26 had attempted to assign its accounts receivable to UCF, so Ericsson’s payments were actually
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION,
AND MOOTING MOTION TO ENLARGE
DISCOVERY DEADLINE
PAGE - 1

1

going to UCF. (Id.) The Court held that Prithvi’s assignments to UCF were invalid. (Id. at 5–6.)
In a separate proceeding, third-party Defendant Kyko Global, Inc. obtained a judgment

2

3 against Prithvi and a garnishment order against Ericsson. (Id.) Pursuant to this order, Ericsson
4 paid Kyko $189,640.84—the money that Ericsson still owed Prithvi. (Id.) Ericsson subsequently
5 realized that it had inadvertently paid $46,907.20 of this amount to UCF via Prithvi’s invalid
6

assignment. (Dkt. No. 55 at 8; Dkt. No. 56 at 13.) In other words, Ericsson double paid—

7
$46,907.20 went to Kyko and UCF for the same invoices.
8
Ericsson now moves the Court to grant summary judgment on its claim that UCF was

9

10 unjustly enriched by the $46,907.20 that Ericsson paid to both it and Kyko. UCF moves the
11 Court to enlarge the discovery deadline and reconsider its previous order.
12 II.
13

DISCUSSION
A.

UCF’s Motions to Enlarge the Discovery Deadline and Reconsider

14
UCF’s motion to enlarge the discovery deadline was made in order to obtain discovery
15
16

from Bank of America via subpoena. (Dkt. No. 100 at 1–2.) UCF has since obtained this

17 discovery, (Dkt. No. 113 at 4–5), so its motion is moot.
18

UCF’s motion for reconsideration is based on Bank of America’s response to UCF’s

19 subpoena. (Dkt. No. 113 at 2.) In its previous order, the Court found that Prithvi’s assignments to
20 UCF were invalid, because Prithvi’s former CEO, Madhavi Vuppalapati, made them after he
21

resigned. (Dkt. No. 98 at 5.) UCF has now obtained records from Bank of America that may

22
show that Vuppalapati was still the owner of Prithvi even after resigning as CEO. (Dkt. No. 11423
24
25

3 at 4.) UCF argues that this means that Vuppalapati retained authority to make the assignments.
“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h)(1). To prevail on its motion,

26 UCF must demonstrate that there was “manifest error” in the Court’s previous ruling, or provide
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION,
AND MOOTING MOTION TO ENLARGE
DISCOVERY DEADLINE
PAGE - 2

1

“new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with

2 reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). UCF does not make the necessary showing.
3

Between March 24, 2014 and May 6, 2014, Vuppalapati attempted to assign Prithvi’s

4 accounts receivable to UCF. (Dkt. No. 53-1 at 19–60.) Vuppalapati made these assignments
5 under the purported title of Prithvi “CEO.” (Id.) But, as the Court has already found, Vuppalapati
6

resigned as CEO ten days earlier—on March 14, 2014. (Dkt. No. 98 at 5.) Vuppalapati did not

7
make the assignments as “Owner” of Prithvi. He did so as “CEO” when he was not CEO. UCF
8
9
10

therefore fails to show that the Court’s previous order was manifestly in error. LCR 7(h)(1).
UCF also argues that its newly-discovered evidence was “unknown and unavailable”

11 before the Court entered its order. (Dkt. No. 113 at 6.) But UCF offers no persuasive explanation
12 for why it did not subpoena Bank of America sooner. UCF has therefore failed to demonstrate
13
14

that this evidence “could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”
LCR 7(h)(1).

15
16

The Court denies UCF’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 113).

17

B.

Ericsson’s Motion for Summary Judgment

18

Ericsson moves for summary judgment on its claim that its inadvertent payment of

19 $46,907.20 unjustly enriched UCF. “Under Rule 56(c), summary judgment is proper if the
20 pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
21

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving

22
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
23
24
25

(1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Under Washington State law, “[t]hree elements must be established for unjust

26 enrichment: (1) there must be a benefit conferred on one party by another; (2) the party receiving
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION,
AND MOOTING MOTION TO ENLARGE
DISCOVERY DEADLINE
PAGE - 3

1

the benefit must have an appreciation or knowledge of the benefit; and (3) the receiving party

2 must accept or retain the benefit under circumstances that make it inequitable for the receiving
3 party to retain the benefit without paying its value.” Dragt v. Dragt/DeTray, LLC, 139 Wash.
4 App. 560, 576 (2007). Ericsson has established these three elements as a matter of law.
5
6

First, it is undisputed that Ericsson paid $46,907.20 to both UCF and Kyko on the same
invoices—i.e. it “erroneously paid twice.” (Dkt. No. 55 at 3, 8; Dkt. No. 54 at 2, 13.) Ericsson

7
thus conferred a benefit on UCF.
8
Second, UCF was aware that it was receiving this benefit. (Dkt. No. 76 at 5.) UCF was

9

10 also aware that Ericsson was paying Kyko pursuant to the garnishment proceeding. (Dkt. No. 98
11 at 6.)
12
13
14

Third, it would be inequitable for UCF to retain the benefit. Ericsson paid $46,907.20 to
Kyko under a court-ordered garnishment proceeding. It mistakenly paid this same amount to
UCF under an invalid assignment. Kyko has a right to the payment; UCF does not.

15
UCF argues that Washington law “does not allow account debtors…an affirmative claim

16

17 against an assignee.” Lydig Const., Inc. v. Rainier Nat. Bank, 40 Wash. App. 141, 146 (1985).
18 But the Court has already found that UCF was not a valid assignee. UCF also argues that
19 Ericsson paid it before it paid Kyko, so Ericsson’s claim should be against Kyko. But this
20 argument is irrelevant, as only Kyko was entitled to the $46,907.20.
21

The Court therefore GRANTS Ericsson’s motion for summary judgment.

22
23
24

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Ericsson’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 99) is

25 GRANTED. UCF’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 113) is DENIED. UCF’s motion to
26 enlarge the discovery deadline (Dkt. No. 100) is MOOT.
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION,
AND MOOTING MOTION TO ENLARGE
DISCOVERY DEADLINE
PAGE - 4

1
2

UCF is ORDERED to pay Ericsson $46,907.20.
DATED this 26th day of April 2016.

3
4
5

A

6
7
8

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION,
AND MOOTING MOTION TO ENLARGE
DISCOVERY DEADLINE
PAGE - 5