Demand Elec. v. Innovative Tech. Holdings
| Decision Date | 30 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 20-CV-02127 (VF) |
| Parties | DEMAND ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff, v. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, Limited Liability Company Plaintiff, v. DEMAND ELECTRIC, INC. and DEMAND ELECTRIC NYC, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Innovative Technology Holdings, LLC (“Innovative”) moves for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) against Defendants Demand Electric, Inc. (“Demand”), and Demand Electric NYC, Inc. (“Demand NYC”) (collectively, the “Demand Entities”). Innovative seeks (1) a judgment in its favor on its claim for breach of contract based on unpaid invoices for goods and services it rendered to the Demand Entities; and (2) dismissal of Demand's claims for negligence, breach of contract breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment. For the reasons that follow, Innovative's motion is GRANTED.
Innovative is a Pennsylvania limited liability company with a primary place of business and headquarters in Langhorne, Pennsylvania. R 56.1 Statement ¶ 1. The Demand Entities are New York corporations with their primary place of business and headquarters in Long Island City, New York. Id. ¶¶ 2-3. The Demand Entities share a common ownership and “are used interchangeably by the owners.” Id. ¶ 4. Innovative is in the business of providing information technology and energy infrastructure solutions, applications, and professional services. Id. ¶ 5.
Around early 2019, Innovative began supplying the Demand Entities with “equipment and services.” Id. ¶ 6. Between January 30, 2019, and June 7, 2019, Innovative issued certain invoices (the “Invoices”) to the Demand Entities. See id. ¶ 7; Innovative's Statement of Material Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 ¶ 7, ECF No. 13 (); Declaration of Dr. Arpan Patel (“Patel Decl.”) Ex. 1, ECF No. 14 (copies of the Invoices). None of the Invoices, with the exception of “Invoice No. 1190,” have been paid by the Demand Entities.[2] R. 56.1 Statement ¶ 8.
On December 20, 2019, Innovative commenced an action against the Demand Entities in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Case No. 19-cv-06160 (the “Innovative Complaint”). See Affirmation of Elizabeth Usinger (“Usinger Affirmation”) ¶ 5, Ex. A, ECF No. 15. On March 6, 2020, the Demand Entities moved to dismiss the Pennsylvania action for lack of jurisdiction. Id. ¶ 6. On March 16, 2020, the Demand Entities commenced the instant action in this Court under Case No. 20-cv-02127 (the “Demand Complaint”). Id. ¶ 7, Ex. B; see also ECF No 3. On April 23, 2020, the Demand Entities' motion to dismiss the Innovative Complaint in the Pennsylvania action was resolved by a stipulation and order directing that the Pennsylvania action be transferred to this Court and consolidated with the instant action. See Usinger Affirmation ¶ 8, Ex. C. Upon transfer to this Court, the Pennsylvania action was initially assigned Case No. 20-cv-03273, but on July 16, 2020, the Honorable Victor Marrero issued an order directing the Clerk of Court to consolidate the Pennsylvania action with the instant action under one Case Number, 20-cv-02127. See id. ¶ 9, Ex. D; see also ECF No. 6.[3]
On January 15, 2021, the Demand Entities filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses (the “Demand Answer”) to the Innovative Complaint. See Usinger Affirmation ¶ 10, Ex. E. On January 22, 2021, Innovative filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Demand Complaint (the “Innovative Answer”). See id. ¶ 11, Ex. F; see also ECF No. 8. On March 1, 2021, a Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order was issued (the “Scheduling Order”), and the parties consented to all proceedings before a Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).[4] See Usinger Affirmation ¶¶ 12-13, Ex. G; see also ECF Nos. 11, 25. As set forth in the Scheduling Order, all discovery closed on July 30, 2021. See ECF No. 11 at 2. No party requested an extension of that deadline and thus, pursuant to the scheduling order, the case was ready for trial as of July 30, 2021. See id.
On July 27, 2022, Innovative filed the instant motion for summary judgment. See ECF Nos. 12-16. On August 24, 2022, the Demand Entities filed their opposition to Innovative's motion; the opposition was comprised solely of the Demand Entities' response to Innovative's Rule 56.1 Statement, see ECF No. 22, and the Declaration of Andrew Kourkoumelis, see ECF No. 21 (“Kourkoumelis Decl.”). The Demand Entities did not file a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion. On August 31, 2023, Innovative filed its reply brief in further support of its motion. See ECF No. 23.
Summary judgment is warranted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., L.P., 22 F.3d 1219, 1223 (2d Cir. 1994). “[T]he trial court's task at the summary judgment motion stage . . . is carefully limited to discerning whether there are any genuine issues of material fact to be tried, not to deciding them.” Gallo 22 F.3d at 1224. The moving party bears the initial burden of “informing the district court of the basis for its motion” and identifying the matter or matters that “it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
A fact is material when it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute of fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Gayle v. Gonyea, 313 F.3d 677, 682 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, the Court is “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Johnson v. Killian, 680 F.3d 234, 236 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted); Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (). However, a court is not required to draw any inference that is “blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
If the movant meets its burden, “the nonmoving party must come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact for trial in order to avoid summary judgment.” Jaramillo v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 536 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23); see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247 (“Rule 56(e) provides that, when a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the adverse party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “A party may not rely on mere speculation or conjecture as to the true nature of the facts to overcome a motion for summary judgment,” because “[m]ere conclusory allegations or denials cannot by themselves create a genuine issue of material fact where none would otherwise exist.” Arnow v. Aeroflot Russian Airlines, 980 F.Supp.2d 477, 482 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159, 166 (2d Cir. 2010)) (internal quotation marks omitted; alteration in original). Rather, to survive summary judgment, the opposing party must establish a genuine issue of fact by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A); Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009). For a genuine dispute regarding a material fact to warrant a jury trial, there must be sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute “to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “When no rational jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party because the evidence to support its case is so slight, there is no genuine issue of material fact and a grant of summary judgment is proper.” Gallo, 22 F.3d at 1224.
Innovative contends that it had an agreement with the Demand Entities to provide them certain equipment and services in exchange for payment, and that the parties' agreement was memorialized in invoices sent by Innovative to the Demand Entities. See Innovative Br. at 7-8, ECF No. 16; Innovative Complaint ¶¶ 20-23 (Count I). Innovative, as the party seeking summary judgment, bears the burden of proving all elements of its breach-of-contract claim. See LG Cap. Funding, LLC v. Exeled Holdings, Corp., No. 17-CV-04006 (RJS), 2017 WL 5069113, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2017) (moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to elements of breach-of-contract claim) (citations omitted). As explained below, Innovative has met that burden here.
Under New York law, a claim for breach of contract requires: (i) the existence of an enforceable agreement; (ii) adequate performance of the contract by the plaintiff; (iii) a breach of that agreement by the defendant; and (iv) damages resulting from the breach. See, e.g., DeFlora Lake Dev Assocs., Inc....
To continue reading
Request your trial