Luis A. Ayala Colon Sucres, Inc. v. Teras Cargo Transport (America) LLC

Filing 33

ORDER granting 23 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 29 Motion for Relief from Mediation Requirement; Plaintiff to submit motion for fees and costs within ten days; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

LUIS A. AYALA COLON SUCRES,
INC.,

10

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C17-5123RBL
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

v.
11
12
13

[Dkt. #23]
TERAS CARGO TRANSPORT
(AMERICA) LLC,
Defendant.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Ayala Colon Sucres, Inc.’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. [Dkt. #23] “Ayacol” alleges and demonstrates that it provided stevedoring
services on the ship Seattle to Defendant Teras Cargo Transport (America) LLC, and that Teras
did not pay. Ayacol sued for breach of contract (or unjust enrichment), and seeks the agreed
upon contract price ($95,108) plus interest costs and fees.
Teras claims that the charterer was actually Teras’s principal, Teras Chartering LLC
(“TChart”) (formerly known as Teras BBC Chartering LLC). All of these Teras group entities
are owned by Mr. Sunny Jo Sanders. Teras and Sanders apparently claim that Teras never agreed
to pay Ayacol for the stevedoring services; the Charterer was actually Tchart. and they claim that
TChart in turn intended that if loading the Seattle took longer than anticipated, TChart would get

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

1

the additional overage it agreed to pay Ayacol, from the US government. It argues there are

2

“genuine issues of material fact” about the contract and its performance, aside from the issues

3

about which Teras entity actually hired Ayacol. See generally Sanders Declaration, Dkt. # 26.

4

Ayacol argues that none of these defenses raise a material issue of fact sufficient to

5

preclude summary judgment—TChart’s claimed “intent” about what would happen does alter or

6

undermine the contract—and that Sanders’ Declaration cannot create a material question of fact

7

by directly contradicting his prior deposition testimony. See Kennedy v Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952

8

F.2d 262, 266 (9th Cir. 1991).

9
10
11

In that testimony, Sanders admitted that Teras hired Ayacol. See Dkt. #s 24-6; 27.
Sanders and Teras concede that the work was done and that Teras did not pay.
Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on

12

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

13

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In determining whether

14

an issue of fact exists, the Court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the

15

nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Anderson Liberty

16

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50 (1986); Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1996).

17

A genuine issue of material fact exists where there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable

18

factfinder to find for the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The inquiry is “whether

19

the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so

20

one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. At 251-52. The moving party bears

21

the initial burden of showing that there is no evidence which supports an element essential to the

22

nonmovant’s claim. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Once the movant has

23

met this burden, the nonmoving party then must show that there is a genuine issue for trial.

24

[DKT. #23] - 2

1

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. If the nonmoving party fails to establish the existence of a genuine

2

issue of material fact, “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex, 477

3

U.S. at 323-24.
Ayacol has met its burden of establishing the contract and its terms, and its breach by

4
5

Defendant Teras. The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED on Plaintiff Ayacol’s

6

breach of contract claim1, and Ayacol is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for the principal

7

amount ($95,108) plus interest, cost, and attorneys’ fees.

8

Ayacol shall submit a motion for fees and costs within ten days, along with a proposed

9

form of Judgment reflecting the principal and interest calculations (along with a calculation of

10

the interest per day, so that the Court can enter an accurate judgment when it determines the

11

reasonable attorneys’ fee). Teras shall respond to the Motion for fees within ten days of the filing

12

of that motion.

13

The Motion for Relief from Mediation Requirement [Dkt. # 29] is DENIED as moot.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated this 7th day of December, 2017.

17

A

18

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

16

19

20
21
22
23
24

1

Ayacol’s alternate, unjust enrichment claim is unnecessary in light of this determination.

[DKT. #23] - 3