Nutri Pharm. Research Inc. v. Stauber Performance Ingredients, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:17-CV-2964 JCM (NJK) |
| Parties | NUTRI PHARMACEUTICALS RESEARCH INC., Plaintiff(s), v. STAUBER PERFORMANCE INGREDIENTS, INC., Defendant(s). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Presently before the court is plaintiff/counter-defendant Nutri Pharmaceuticals Research, Inc.'s ("plaintiff") motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 22). Defendant/counter-claimant Stauber Performance Ingredients, Inc. ("defendant") filed a response (ECF No. 27), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 28).
Also before the court is defendant's motion in limine. (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 33), to which defendant replied (ECF No. 34).
The instant action arises from a series of allegedly-breached contracts. On one hand, plaintiff claims that defendant failed to pay for thirty-two shipments of goods. (ECF No. 1). On the other hand, defendant claims that plaintiff breached three unrelated contracts when it shipped rancid goods. (ECF No. 5).
Plaintiff manufactures and supplies "nutritional bioactive supplements." (ECF No. 22 at 1). Defendant provides ingredients to the food, nutritional, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and pet care industries. Id. at 2. The parties first began doing business with one another in October 2007. Id. Defendant would purchase and resell materials that plaintiff manufactured. Id. This business relationship continued without incident for almost ten years. Id.
Then problems began to arise. (ECF No. 29 at 2). Defendant ordered borage oil powder from plaintiff in December 2015, and against in January 2016, for one of its customers, Glanbia Nutritionals, Inc. ("Glanbia"). Id. at 3. Glanbia used the borage oil powder to make gummies but, when the gummies were finished in January 2017,1 it informed defendant that the gummies smelled rancid. Id. Glanbia attributed the smell to the borage oil powder. Id. Defendant tested the borage oil powder and found that it had high peroxide values, which were consistent with rancidity. Id. at 3-4.
After this incident, Glanbia tested the borage oil powder that it had ordered in June 2016, before it produced rancid-smelling gummies. Id. at 4. The test showed a high peroxide value, which is consistent with rancidity. Id.
Defendant ordered conjugated linoleic acid oil powder for another one of its customers, Milk Specialties Global Events ("Milk"), in March 2017, which plaintiff delivered in May. Id. at 2-3. Milk rejected the conjugated linoleic acid oil powder because of a rancid smell. Id. at 3. Defendant tested the conjugated linoleic acid oil powder and found that it had high peroxide values, which was consistent with rancidity. Id. at 3.
Defendant refunded both Glanbia and Milk for their orders. Id. at 4. Plaintiff denied responsibility for the rancid products. (ECF No. 33 at 2 ()).
More problems arose between August 2017 and October 2017. (ECF No. 22 at 2). Defendant placed thirty-two purchase orders with plaintiff for various products, and plaintiff delivered them to defendant's customers. Id. Although defendant's customers received the goods as required by the thirty-two purchase orders, defendant refused to pay for the goods. Id. Defendant claims that it is entitled to offset any monies owed to plaintiff for the thirty-two shipments because plaintiff breached the Glanbia and Milk contracts by delivering rancid goods. (ECF No. 27 at 6-7).
Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment only on its claims against defendant. (ECF No. 22). Defendant moves to exclude the opinion and testimony of plaintiff's rebuttal expert. (ECF No. 29).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow summary judgment when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A principal purpose of summary judgment is "to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).
For purposes of summary judgment, disputed factual issues should be construed in favor of the non-moving party. Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990). However, to be entitled to a denial of summary judgment, the nonmoving party must "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id.
In determining summary judgment, a court applies a burden-shifting analysis. The moving party must first satisfy its initial burden. C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
By contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an essential element of the non-moving party's case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party's case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and the courtneed not consider the nonmoving party's evidence. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159-60 (1970).
If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that "the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987).
In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual data. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the opposition must go beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.
At summary judgment, a court's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The evidence of the nonmovant is "to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Id. at 255. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See id. at 249-50.
"The court must decide any preliminary question about whether . . . evidence is admissible." Fed. R. Evid. 104. Motions in limine are procedural mechanisms by which the court can make evidentiary rulings in advance of trial, often to preclude the use of unfairly prejudicial evidence. United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111-12 (9th Cir. 2009); Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 2003).
"Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district court's inherent authority to manage the course oftrials." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1980). Motions in limine may be used to exclude or admit evidence in advance of trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 103; United States v. Williams, 939 F.2d 721, 723 (9th Cir. 1991).
Judges have broad discretion when ruling on motions in limine. See Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 922 (9th Cir. 1999) (). "[I]n limine rulings are not binding on the trial judge [who] may always change his mind during the course of a trial." Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n.3 (2000); accord Luce, 469 U.S. at 41 ().
Defendant correctly notes that plaintiff, "as the moving party with the burden of proof at the time of trial, must establish the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to its case." (ECF No. 27 at 4 (citing Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians v. Phebus, 5 F. Supp. 3d 1221, 1227 (D. Nev. 2014))). "A breach of contract may be said to be a material failure of performance of a duty arising under or imposed by agreement." Bernard v. Rockhill Dev. Co., 734 P.2d 1238, 1240 (Nev. 1987). Thus, plaintiff must show: (1) formation of a valid contract; (2) performance or excuse of performance by the plaintiff; (3) material breach by the defendant; and (4) damages. See id.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial