Ningbo Beter Lighting Co., Ltd. v. Unique Arts, LLC

Filing 24

ORDER granting in part and reserving in part 19 Motion for Summary Judgment; setting a telephone conference for September 26, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 09/16/2016. (mfh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
NINGBO BETER LIGHTING CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
15-cv-228-wmc

UNIQUE ARTS, LLC,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Ningbo Beter Lighting Co., Ltd. asserts a breach of contract claim against
defendant Unique Arts, LLC based on Unique Arts’ failure to pay for lighting and related
products sold by plaintiff. Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment,
seeking $374,531.90 in damages for unpaid invoices and $312,596.99 in prejudgment
interest. (Dkt. #19.) Defendant’s response to plaintiff’s motion was due on May 6,
2016. As of the date of this opinion, defendant has yet to respond. While the court will,
therefore, enter judgment in plaintiff’s favor as to liability, finding plaintiff established a
breach of contract, plaintiff’s submission on damages is not sufficiently supported for the
court to enter a damages award. Accordingly, the court will hold a telephonic status
conference on September 26, 2016, to determine whether plaintiff can supplement with
adequate proof of all its damages, or whether a notice of and evidentiary hearing on
default judgment on October 3, 2016, is more appropriate.

UNDISPUTED FACTS
Ningbo Beter Lighting (“Ningbo”) is a Chinese manufacturer of lighting products.
In 2005, Ningbo established a business relationship with Unique Arts.

At the time,

Ningbo’s president and shareholder, Peter Lu, met Unique Art’s president, Ati Goknur,
at a trade show in Hong Kong. After that meeting, Unique Arts began to send orders to
Ningbo for lighting products. Most of those orders were sent by email.
Upon receipt of an order, Ningbo would send Unique Arts a pro forma invoice,
listing the goods ordered and the prices for those goods. If Unique Arts agreed to the
quoted prices, it would sign the invoice and return it to Ningbo, usually by email. Ningo
would then ship the ordered products along with the signed invoice.

Unique Arts

admitted in its responses to interrogatories that it incurred the obligations to pay Ningbo
totaling $1,119,544.61 for goods Ningbo shipped to Unique Arts during the entire
period of the parties’ business relationship. However, Unique Arts’ discovery responses
contained a spreadsheet showing total payments in the amount of $1,044,630.59.
In late 2011, Ningbo and Unique Arts also entered into a written contract that
made Unique Arts the exclusive sales representative for Ningbo products with Home
Depot.

At that time, the Agreement memorialized that Unique Arts owed Ningbo

$362,103.81 in unpaid invoices.

Since entering into that Agreement, Ningbo has

received: (1) in December 2011, a $5,000 payment on the debt acknowledged in the
2011 Agreement; (2) $74,431.80 in payments on invoices that post-date the 2011
Agreement; and (3) $44,506.83 in commissions for selling Ningbo products to Home
Depot.
All of the above transactions above cause Unique Arts to acknowledge that it still
owed $30,407.19 to Ningbo. In response, Ningbo contends that Unique Arts double
counted the $5,000 payment referenced above. Moreover, Ningbo contends that Unique
2

Art’s spreadsheet does not contain $600,102.73 in additional invoices and $254,968.00
in additional payments. Based on these invoices and payments, Ningbo contends that
Unique Arts owes $380.541.09.1

Moreover, Ningbo contends that the 2011 Home

Depot Agreement underreported Unique Arts’ liability at that time by $70,000.

OPINION
“Even when a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment goes unopposed, a plaintiff
is not entitled to summary judgment unless it establishes that there is no issue of material
fact with respect to the elements it must prove and that it is therefore entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Townsend, 793 F.3d 771, 796
(7th Cir. 2015) (citing Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. Nat’l Retirement Fund, 778 F.3d 593,
601–02 (7th Cir. 2015); Johnson v. Gudmundsson, 35 F.3d 1104, 1112 (7th Cir. 1994)).
Here, plaintiff has established -- as Unique Arts appears to concede in its discovery
responses and Ninghbo’s unchallenged evidence on summary judgment shows -- Unique
Arts’ breach of the parties’ contract (or, rather, contracts) by failing to pay the various
invoices.

Still, plaintiff’s submission as to damages owed due to that breach is not

adequate.
As detailed above, plaintiff’s proposed facts and supporting materials fail to
explain its assertion that Unique Arts owes it $380,541.09.

In particular, Ningbo

provides no explanation of the 21 invoices apparently missing from Unique Arts’ records,

Note that this amount -- in the proposed findings of facts and brief -- is about $6000 less than
the amount listed in the motion for summary judgment, apparently before interest. This
unexplained discrepancy further amplifies the court’s concerns with plaintiff’s submission.
1

3

despite all of the invoices pre-dating the 2011 Agreement at which time the parties were
in agreement as to the amount owed. Instead, Peter Lu, one of Ningbo’s shareholders,
simply lists these new debts in his declaration without attaching any documentation in
support of this claim. (Lu Decl. (dkt. #22) ¶ 10.) With this bare information, the court
has no basis for determining whether these additional invoices were accounted for in the
amount listed in the 2011 Agreement or covered by payments. At minimum, the court
needs a more thorough accounting to enter judgment in plaintiff’s favor on the amount
requested.
Moreover, in its brief in support of summary judgment, Ningbo states that it seeks
prejudgment interest in the amount of $312,596.99. Here, again, Ningbo provides no
explanation for that amount. In particular, plaintiff does not explain the interest rate
used, whether the interest was compounded, or even the legal basis for an award of
prejudgment interest. Absent more information, the court cannot sustain that award
either.
Accordingly, the court will hold a telephonic conference on September 26, 2016,
at 10:00 a.m. to determine whether plaintiff can clarify its damages request. If not, the
court will hold an evidentiary hearing on damages on October 3, to determine the proper
amount due.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff Ningbo Beter Lighting’s motion for summary judgment (dkt. #19) is
GRANTED as to liability, and RESERVED as to damages.
4

2) The court will hold a telephonic conference on September 26, 2016, at
10:00 a.m. Plaintiff’s counsel to establish conference call to chambers at 608264-5087.
3) All pre-trial deadlines and the October 3, 2016, trial date remain in place.
Entered this 16th day of September, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

5