All-Am. Hose, LLC v. Labarge Prods., Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:12CV215 TIA |
| Parties | ALL-AMERICAN HOSE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. LABARGE PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 17), and Defendant's Motion for Additional Time to Conduct Discovery (ECF 23). The parties have filed responsive pleadings to the pending motions. All matters are pending before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, with the consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Plaintiff All-American Hose, LLC ("All-American"), filed the instant action against Defendant LaBarge Products, Inc. ("LaBarge"), alleging that between November 24, 2010 and May 25, 2011, All-American provided certain hose products, goods, and materials to LaBarge, and LaBarge has failed and refused to pay the All-American invoices although All-American has demanded payment thereof. (Compl. at ¶¶ 7, 11). All-American contends that LaBarge is indebted for All-American Products provided in the total amount of $318,928.01. (Compl. at ¶¶ 10, 16, 20). All-American seeks to recover from LaBarge on three counts: suit on account (Count I), breach of contract (Count II), and quantum meruit (Count III).
All-American has filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In addition to filingopposition thereto, LaBarge has filed a motion for additional time to conduct discovery. LaBarge contends that pursuant to the Case Management Order, the discovery deadline is November 15, 2012. The record shows LaBarge did not request additional time to complete discovery nor requested to file any supplemental pleadings. Because the undisputed facts demonstrated that All-American is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the undersigned will grant the motion for summary judgment.
Pursuant to Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may grant summary judgment if the information before the court shows that there are no material issues of fact in dispute and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The burden of proof is on the moving party to set forth the basis of the motion, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986), and the court must view all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Once the moving party shows there are no material issues of fact in dispute, the burden shifts to the adverse party to set forth facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. "[T]he nonmovant must respond by submitting evidentiary materials that 'set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2)). The non-moving party may not rest upon her pleadings, but must come forward with affidavits or other admissible evidence to rebut the motion. Id., at 324. The nonmovant must "explain the legal significance of her factual allegations beyond the mere conclusory statements importing the appropriate terms of art." Quinn v. St. Louis Cnty., 653 F.3d 745, 752 (8th Cir. 2011).
In passing on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must review the facts in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and give that party the benefit of any inference that logically can be drawn from those facts. Buller v.Buechler, 706 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1983). TheCourt is required to resolve all conflicts of evidence in favor of the nonmoving party. Robert Johnson Grain Co. v. Chem. Interchange Co., 541 F.2d 207, 210 (8th Cir. 1976). At the summary judgment stage, the undersigned will not weigh the evidence and decide the truth of the matter, but rather the undersigned need only determine if there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Summary judgment is not appropriate unless all the evidence points one way and is susceptible to no reasonable inferences sustaining the position of the nonmoving party." Hindman v. Transkrit Corp., 145 F.3d 986, 990 (8th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted); Bassett v. City of Minneapolis, 211 F.3d 1097, 1099 (8th Cir. 2000). Material facts are those "that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law," and a genuine material fact is one "such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 at 248. Further, if the nonmoving party has failed to "make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, ... there can be 'no genuine issue as to any material fact,' since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23.
Nonetheless, it is clear to survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must support his/her allegations with sufficient probative evidence to permit a finding in the plaintiff's favor based upon more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy. Putnam v. Unity Health Sys., Inc. 348 F.3d 732, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2003). "Mere allegations, unsupported by specific facts or evidence beyond the nonmoving party's own conclusions, are insufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment." Thomas v. Corwin, 483 F.3d 516, 526-27 (8th Cir. 2007). "Simply referencing the complaint, or alleging that a fact is otherwise, is insufficient to show there is a genuine issue for trial." Kountze ex rel. v. Hitchcock Foundation v. Gaines, 2008 WL 2609197, at * 3 (8th Cir. 2008). "'Only disputesover the facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.'" Bass v. SBC Commc'ns, Inc., 418 F.3d 870, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). Thus, Plaintiff, even though the non-moving party for summary-judgment purposes, "must still 'present[] evidence sufficiently supporting the disputed material facts [such] that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in [its] favor.'" Pope v. ESA Servs, Inc., 406 F.3d 1001-1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Gregory v. City of Rogers, 974 F.2d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 1992)). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat a motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48.
Viewing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable of the nonmoving party, plaintiff, A. Brod, Inc. v. SK & I Co., L.L.C., 998 F. Supp. 314, 320 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), the Court sets forth the following facts as established by the depositions, affidavits, and the records submitted by the parties:
Plaintiff All-American Hose, LLC ("All-American") is a limited liability company existing pursuant to Delaware law with its principal place of business in Union City, Pennsylvania. (Pltf.'s Exh. A, Guzik Aff. at ¶ 12). Defendant LaBarge Products, Inc. ("LaBarge") is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to Missouri law with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. (Def.'s Answer, ECF 6 at ¶ 2). All-American is in the business of supplying industrial and commercial hoses and related parts and products. (Id. at ¶ 3). LaBarge purchases industrial and commercial hoses and related parts and products from All-American. (Id. at ¶ 3).
Between November 24, 2010 and May 25, 2011, All-American provided certain hoseproducts, goods, and materials to LaBarge as requested. (Id. at ¶ 7; Guzik Aff. at ¶ 15, Exh. 1). The All-American invoices have the payment term of "1% 10 Net 30," i.e. the price owed under the invoice was due thirty days from the invoice's date. (Exh. 1 at 3). Mr. Guzik averred that LaBarge promised to pay for the All-American products within thirty days of each of the invoices. (Guzik Aff. at ¶ 16). All-American provided the products to LaBarge as requested. (Id. at ¶ 17). Mr. Guzik averred that the prices for the All-American products listed on the invoices are All-American's customary and normal prices for the All-American Products and reflect the reasonable value of the All-American Products. (Id. at ¶¶ 19-22). LaBarge has never disputed the charges for the All-American Products in these transactions as documented in the invoices. (Id. at ¶ 21; Exhs. 2-3). LaBarge has previously paid All-American's normal and customary charges for similar products. (Guzik Aff. at ¶20). LaBarge admitted that it received the All-American Products. (Guzik Aff. at ¶¶ 18 and 26; Exhs. 2-3).
LaBarge has made payments and received credits on the amount due for the All-American Products totaling $161,811.82. (Guzik Aff. at ¶ 32; Exh. 5). LaBarge provided certain parts and products to All-American with a value of $166,396.12. (Id. at ¶ 32; Exhs. 4-5). All-American credited the amount owed by LaBarge with the value of the LaBarge Products. (Guzik Aff. at ¶29). LaBarge did not offer to provide the LaBarge Products to All-American in full satisfaction of the amount owed by LaBarge for the All-American Products. (Id. at ¶30). All-American did not agree to accept the LaBarge Products in full satisfaction for the amount owed by LaBarge for the All-American Products. (Id. at ¶ 31). Applying all credits and payments, LaBarge owes All-American $318,928.01 for the All-American Products. (Id. at 32, Exh. 5).
The All-American November 24, 2010, December 31, 2011, and January 13 and February 12,2012 Invoices and the January 27, 2012 Statement contain the term of "Net 30." (Exhs. 1, 3, 4 and 5). The December 30, 2010, January 20 and February 25, 2011 Invoices do not contain any payment terms. (Exh. 1). Despite the terms of the invoices and statements, LaBarge refused and continues to...
To continue reading
Request your trial