Richardson v. Owens
| Decision Date | 07 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 3:19-CV-672-KFP |
| Parties | JOHN RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. CLYDE A. OWENS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
Plaintiff John Richardson brings this lawsuit against Defendants Clyde A. Owens and C.A. Owens & Associates, Inc. asserting numerous claims related to an oral agreement made between the parties in 2012 or 2013.1 Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 18) and supporting brief (Doc. 19), Richardson filed a response (Doc. 20), and Defendants filed a reply (Doc. 22). The Court heard oral argument on the motion on April 26, 2021. See Docs. 25, 26. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions and testimony, the record, and the relevant law, Defendants' motion is GRANTED for the reasons set forth below.
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a reviewing court must grant a motion for summary judgment "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). "By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-248 (1986). "An issue of fact is 'genuine' if the record as a whole could lead a reasonable trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party." Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Saraland Apartments, 94 F.3d 1489, 1496 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). "An issue is 'material' if it might affect the outcome of the case under the governing law." Id.
The party seeking summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56). The movant can meet this burden by presenting evidence showing there is no dispute of material fact or by showing that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of his case on which he bears the ultimate burden of proof. Id. at 322-23.
Once the movant has satisfied this burden, the nonmoving party must "go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 324. In doing so, and to avoid summary judgment, the nonmovant "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts."Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The parties must support their assertions "that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed" by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations[], admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials" or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A)-(B).
If the nonmovant "fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c)," then the Court may "consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion" and "grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials - including the facts considered undisputed - show that the movant is entitled to it." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2)-(3).
"In reviewing whether the nonmoving party has met its burden, the [C]ourt must stop short of weighing the evidence and making credibility determinations of the truth of the matter." Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F.2d 994, 998-99 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). "Instead, the evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Id. at 999 (citations and internal quotations omitted). However, "mere conclusions and unsupported factual allegations are legally insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion." Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Furthermore, "[a] mere 'scintilla' of evidence supporting the opposing party's position will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party." Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 () (internal citations omitted).
Defendant Owens is a resident of Okaloosa County, Florida. In 2009, he purchased a 1300-acre tract of land in Macon County, Alabama, in his individual name. Shortly after that purchase, he met Richardson. For the next couple of years, the two were friends and spent time together on the property.
In approximately 2012, Owens and Richardson entered into an agreement for Richardson to cut timber from the property for Owens. Richardson was in the timber business at that time. Richardson agrees that, as to the timber cutting relationship between the parties, it was an arms-length transaction and each party treated the other fairly.
In approximately 2013, Richardson and Owens discovered that a neighbor had harvested a deer that had been spotted several times on Owens' property. Richardson suggested that Owens construct a high fence around his property to contain the deer. Subsequently, Richardson and Owens agreed that Richardson, through his timber businesses, would harvest the timber to make way for the high fence and earn Owens enough money to build the fence. They further agreed that a third-party named Rodney Griffith would clear the right of way after Richardson harvested the timber. However,Griffith stopped working part-way through the job, so Richardson finished the clearing. Owens paid Richardson for that work, and Richardson has no complaints related to that engagement.
Richardson finished cutting the timber and clearing the right of way, and a third-party built the high fence. At some point after the high fence was completed, Owens and Richardson discussed the idea of buying genetically superior deer to increase the quality of the deer on the property. What happened next is the crux of the dispute between the parties.
According to Owens, he decided to buy his own breeder deer with his own money. Thus, deer pens were constructed on Owens' property and Owens purchased the deer. At that point, Owens and Richardson determined that there may be a way to make a profit from the sale or paid hunting of the purchased and raised deer. Owens testified that the terms of the parties' arrangement were as follows:
[I]f [Richardson] provide[d] the sweat equity of managing the deer on a day-to-day basis and seeing about who we can sell deer to and generate some revenue, then what we'll do is we'll take the revenues for the year and we'll subtract the consumables like medicine, deer feed, et cetera, et cetera, and if we come up with any profit, then we'll split it in two.
Doc. 19 at 4. Subsequently, beginning in or around 2013, deer were bred and raised on Owens' property. During that time, no revenue was generated from the deer business. To the contrary, Owens alleges he suffered losses of $196,000 to $230,000 each year from thebusiness. At some point between 2017 and 2019,3 Owens decided to stop the failing deer business. He informed Richardson of this fact and their relationship terminated. Owens contends that no partnership was ever formed between the parties.
Richardson testified that, at the time the parties entered into their arrangement, Owens "kept denying partnership." Doc. 18-3 at 35:2-10. However, despite Owens' contrary belief, Richardson contends the two orally formed a general partnership for the purpose of breeding and raising deer. The goal was to raise genetically superior deer and to sell deer hunts, deer semen, and deer to other farms. Under the alleged partnership agreement, Owens would supply all the land and money for the operation, and Richardson would supply the sweat equity, or day-to-day labor. Richardson testified that his understanding of the terms was that Owens Doc. 18-3 at 35:2-10. In support of his claim that the two formed a partnership, Richardson presents various licensing and business documents listing Richardson as a "co-owner" or "partner" with Owens. See Doc. 20 at 3.
Richardson alleges that, following the parties' arrangement, he worked on Owens' property for approximately five years without being paid.4 Additionally, despite the initialgoal of the business, Richardson alleges that Owens would never allow him to sell any deer hunts or deer for profit because it wasn't "worth it."5 Id. at 4; Doc. 21-9 at 2. Then, at some point between 2017 and 2019, Owens made the unilateral decision to dissolve the partnership and ban Richardson from his property. According to Richardson, at the time Owens terminated their relationship, there were approximately 92 deer in the breeder pen worth approximately $4,000 each. Owens did not sell or attempt to sell any of the deer; instead, he released them from the pen and onto his 1300-acre property, and then Owens listed his property for...
To continue reading
Request your trial