Ebc Inc v. Clark Bldg. Sys. Inc

Citation618 F.3d 253
Decision Date18 August 2010
Docket Number2010.,LAR 34.1(a) Feb. 23,No. 09-1182.,09-1182.
PartiesEBC, INC.; State Steel Supply, Inc.v.CLARK BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.; American Compost Corporation; A & M Composting, Inc.; Solid Waste Services, Inc., State Steel Supply, Inc., Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jennifer L. Gardner, Esq., Margaret M. Metzinger, Esq., Stewart D. Roll, Esq., Climaco Law Firm, Cleveland, OH, Paul R. Rosenberger, Esq., Persky, Shapiro & Arnoff, Beachwood, OH, for Appellant.

Albert A. DeGennaro, Esq., Audobon, PA, William F. Fox, Jr., Esq., J.P. Mascaro & Sons, Harleysville, PA, for Appellees.

Before: SCIRICA and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges, and RODRIGUEZ *, District Judge.

OPINION

CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.

In April 2004, now-defunct Clark Building Systems, Inc. (Clark) entered into a contract with appellee A & M Composting, Inc. (A & M), under which Clark would fabricate and deliver components for a large steel building to be assembled at A & M's facility. Clark, in turn, subcontracted with appellant State Steel Supply, Inc. (State Steel) to supply raw steel for the project. When State Steel was not paid for a significant portion of the steel that it supplied, it brought this diversity action against A & M in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The District Court granted A & M's motion for summary judgment in part, rejecting State Steel's claims for breach of contract and an account stated. It denied summary judgment on State Steel's claims of unjust enrichment and fraudulent inducement, and a bench trial ensued. The District Court thereafter granted A & M's motion for judgment on partial findings pursuant to Rule 52(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and entered final judgment. State Steel now appeals. We will affirm.

I.
A.

A & M operates a composting facility in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.1 In February 2003, a severe snowstorm caused the roof of its building to collapse, requiring replacement of the entire structure. On April 14, 2004, A & M engaged Clark in a contract (the “Contract”) to fabricate a 465,000-square-foot facility composed of three steel buildings (collectively, the “Project Buildings”) to replace the original. Joint Appendix (“JA”) 320-21. A & M agreed to pay Clark a fixed price of $2,418,476, to be paid according to the following schedule:

JA 322-23. The Contract did not itemize expenses for project components, but the second payment was to be deposited into a joint checking account and was specifically “to be used to pay suppliers of the raw materials necessary for Clark to fabricate the Project Buildings.” JA 323. Upon delivery of each segment of the Project Buildings, Clark was to invoice A & M, and A & M was to satisfy the invoice within seven days. JA 41, 323-24.

The Contract, under which time was of the essence, required Clark to fabricate the steel materials at its own facility and deliver them to A & M for assembly. Selected third parties would be responsible for the following: erecting the buildings, galvanizing the component steel materials, and supplying the necessary anchor bolts. JA 40, 322. Clark also represented that it “ha[d] the ability to secure and ha[d] made the necessary arrangements to secure the raw materials required for the fabrication of the Project Buildings....” JA 325. To that end, Clark entered into subcontracts with, among others, State Steel and EBC, Inc. (EBC) to provide the raw materials. Pursuant to these agreements, EBC was to supply purlins, roofing, and siding materials, and State Steel was to deliver shipments of raw steel to Clark's facility. JA 273, 278, 308-09. A & M was not a party to these subcontracts.

A & M paid Clark the initial down payment ($90,000) and thereafter deposited the second down payment ($507,619) into the joint checking account established for Clark's suppliers. EBC was paid from this account a deposit of $110,000 on April 23, 2004. JA 392-93. State Steel was also paid from this account a deposit of $100,000 on May 7, 2004. JA 337-38, 565-66.

On May 26, 2004, A & M's General Counsel, William Fox, sent a letter to State Steel's President, Adrienne Chizek,2 which read in relevant part:

Re: Your Contract with Clark Building Systems, Inc. For Web Materials for Further Processing by Clark

I am General Counsel for Solid Waste Services, Inc. d/b/a J.P. Mascaro & Sons and its affiliated companies (“Mascaro”)[,] one of which is A & M Composting, Inc., the owner of the A & M Composting facility in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

Mascaro is a large regional company headquartered in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, that engages in the collection, recycling, processing, transportation, disposal[,] and composting of solid waste. Mascaro has been in business for 35 years, it competes successfully with the national waste companies, it has strong, long-term bonding and banking relationships[,] and it is rated 5-A-1 by Dunn & Bradstreet.
Mascaro has contracted with Clark Building Systems, Inc. to provide a large fabricated steel building (i.e. approximately 465,000 square feet) related to the reconstruction of the A & M Compost facility. Clark has previous experience in providing this type of building to Mascaro, the last of which was a 250,000 square foot fabricated building for use at Mascaro's Wetzel County Compost facility in 2002.
We understand that Clark has contracted with your company to provide web materials for the A & M reconstruction project. We also understand that the amount of their contract with your company is approximately $450,000 and that Clark has made a substantial down payment to your company.
I am writing to advise you that under our contract with Clark, we make payment to Clark within seven days of the building material delivery for each completed phase, without defect, to our site. With respect to any balance that Clark may owe your company for the web materials, [our] company is willing, with Clark's permission, to pay you directly or by joint check made payable to Clark and your company within the seven day period, as long as our payment is credited by Clark against the amount due under our contract with Clark. It is our understanding that Clark is agreeable to this arrangement.
I am providing a copy of this letter to Sol Wansor and Jeff Smith, the President and Controller of Clark, and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact either of them or me.

JA 308-09. Fox sent identical letters to EBC and another subcontractor with whom Clark had entered into a supply agreement. JA 309A-D. The letter (the “Fox Letter”) underpins this dispute.

From May through November of 2004, State Steel delivered to Clark's facility a series of steel shipments, and it invoiced Clark accordingly. JA 42-43, 267. On August 4, 2004, Clark sent a request to A & M to forward a payment of $90,000 directly to State Steel for materials for which Clark had not yet paid. JA 568-70. A & M did so the following day. JA 49, 567. On September 24, 2004, Clark again requested that A & M forward $90,000 to State Steel for steel that had yet to be paid for, and A & M forwarded the payment to State Steel on September 27, 2004. JA 49-50, 571-72. These direct payments did not come from the joint checking account, and A & M made them with the understanding that its balance to Clark would be deducted accordingly. JA 49-50, 290. In all, A & M paid State Steel $280,000. JA 48.

Clark fell behind schedule in delivering the fabricated steel components to A & M. On September 2, 2004, Fox wrote to Clark's President, Sol Wansor, detailing Clark's “serious failure to adhere to the delivery and completion schedule” set forth by the Contract. Supplemental Appendix (“SA”) 8. He explained that A & M was unable to operate without the new buildings, and that Clark's delay jeopardized a $200 million composting contract with a governmental entity. Id. A & M ultimately hired mitigation subcontractors to complete the work for which Clark had been responsible under the Contract. JA 335-36; SA 11-15. This mitigation cost increased the total purchase price by $119,459.22, and was reflected in a Change Order form. JA 53, 336; SA 15. In a letter to Wansor dated October 7, 2004, Fox stated: “As a follow up to earlier correspondences, I have executed your form Change Order regarding the subcontractors that are now performing a portion of your work under the above-referenced contract. As indicated in my earlier letters, we have agreed to pay the subcontractors directly for the work they do.” JA 335.

Delivery of the fabricated steel components was completed in January 2005, and the buildings were assembled by March 2005. JA 55. On July 11, 2005, Wansor wrote to Mascaro about outstanding balances that A & M purportedly owed to Clark's subcontractors. Wansor attached an earlier memorandum written by Jefferey Smith (Clark's Controller) indicating that A & M owed State Steel an additional $214,958.20 and EBC an additional $117,781.95. JA 347. A & M vigorously denied that it owed anything more to either of these subcontractors. JA 56-57. Though it had invoiced Clark for steel materials valued at $489,902.15, it is undisputed that State Steel received only three payments totaling $280,000. JA 55. EBC, too, never received full compensation for the materials that it had supplied. Clark ultimately went out of business and its assets were sold at a sheriff's sale. JA 7 n.2.

B.

State Steel and EBC filed this action against A & M and Clark 3 on November 7, 2005, asserting four claims against A & M: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraudulent inducement; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) an account stated. State Steel alleged that the Fox Letter constituted an enforceable agreement requiring A & M to pay directly the outstanding balance on the invoices for the steel supplied to Clark....

To continue reading

Request your trial
373 cases
  • Grundowski v. United States, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-2207
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 16 Mayo 2012
    ...should apply "the same standard of proof and weigh the evidence as it would at the conclusion of the trial." EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., Inc., 618 F.3d 253, 272 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Emerson Elec. Co. v. Farmer, 427 F.2d 1082, 1086 (5th Cir. 1970); Falter v. Veterans Admin., 632 F. Supp......
  • Lankford v. City of Clifton Police Dep't
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 29 Junio 2021
    ...the B.A.C. Local 4 Pension Fund v. Demza Masonry, LLC , 2021 WL 323780 at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2021) (quoting EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., Inc. 618 F.3d 253, 262 (3d Cir. 2010) ).Ms. Kennedy's testimony provides such evidence. While a jury could very easily discount her version of events o......
  • Nucor Corp. v. Requenez
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • 4 Enero 2022
    ...1980) ); see Axxiom Mfg. v. McCoy Invs. , 846 F. Supp. 2d 732, 750 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (Rosenthal, J.) (quoting EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys. , 618 F.3d 253, 270 (3d Cir. 2010) ) (citing Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc. , 601 F.3d 1224, 1237 (11th Cir. 2010) ).262 Winzer , 916 F.3d at 472 (quotin......
  • Mccauley v. Univ. Of The V.I.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 18 Agosto 2010
    ...that he had failed to establish a cognizable injury. Because McCauley need not show injury to himself to assert a facial challenge618 F.3d 253 to Paragraph B, see supra Part II, we will evaluate his claim on the merits. McCauley asserts that Paragraph B is overbroad because it captures spee......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Deposition Objections
    • 31 Marzo 2021
    ...635 (S.D. Fla. 2005), §6:01 Dyer v. Palmer, 2011 WL 739086 (E.D. Mich. 2011), §13:20 — E — EBC, Inc. v. Clark Building Systems, Inc., 618 F.3d 253 (3rd Cir. 2010), §26:03 Ecker v. Wisconsin Central, Ltd., 2008 WL 1777222 (E.D. Wis. 2008), §17:27 E.E.O.C. v. Simply Storage Management, LLC, 2......
  • Discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Employment Discrimination Cases. Volume 1-2 Volume 2 - Practice
    • 1 Mayo 2023
    ...discretion to extend Rule 30(e)’s 30-day deadline and/or forgive untimely changes after the fact. See EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys. Inc. , 618 F.3d 253, 266 n. 12 (3d Cir. 2010) (“Note, however, the phrasing of the rule-it provides that a party or deponent ‘must be allowed 30 days’ to submi......
  • Summary Judgment Practice and Procedure
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Employment Discrimination Cases. Volume 1-2 Volume 2 - Practice
    • 1 Mayo 2023
    ...them to the extent that they squarely contradict the earlier sworn oral deposition testimony. In EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Systems, Inc. , 618 F.3d 253 (3rd Cir. 2010), the Third Circuit explained this analysis as follows: We are called upon to interpret Rule 30(e) in the summary judgment co......
  • Give Me a Break: Regulating Communications Between Attorneys and Their Witness-Clients During Deposition Recesses
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics No. 36-3, July 2023
    • 1 Julio 2023
    ...Co. v. Balkin Enters., Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1224–25 (9th Cir. 2005). 181. Id. at 1225; see also EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., Inc., 618 F.3d 253, 269–70 (3d Cir. 2010) (addressing the “sham aff‌idavit” rule in connection with substantive changes on a deposition errata). 524 THE GEORGETOWN ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT