Sierra Food Grp., Inc. v. Snaclite, LLC
| Decision Date | 06 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:14-cv-02401-TMP |
| Parties | SIERRA FOOD GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. SNACLITE, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
This cause is before the court on the motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff, Sierra Food Group, Inc., ("Sierra") on February 13, 2015. (Doc. 12). The plaintiff seeks summary judgment as to its claims against the defendant. The motion was supported by a brief and evidentiary submission. (Docs. 13, 14). The defendant has filed a brief in opposition, and the plaintiff has filed a reply to that brief. (Docs. 20, 21). Oral argument on the motion was heard on March 20, 2015. The court has considered the evidence and the arguments set forth by all parties. The parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (doc. 15).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is proper "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). The party asking for 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, 47 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). 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 its case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. There is no requirement, however, "that the moving party support its motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent's claim." Id. at 323.
Once the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56 "requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions of file,' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 324 (quoting former Fed. R.Civ. P. 56(e)). The nonmoving party need not present evidence in a form necessary for admission at trial; however, he may not merely rest on his pleadings. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. "[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Id. at 322.
After the non-moving party has properly responded to a proper motion for summary judgment, the court "shall" grant the motion if there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The substantive law will identify which facts are material and which are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at 248. "[T]he judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 249. His guide is the same standard necessary to direct a verdict: "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Id. at 251-252; see also Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 461 U.S. 731, 745 n. 11 (1983).
However, the nonmoving party "must do more than 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 evidence supporting a claim must be "substantial," Marcus v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 379 (5th Cir., Unit B, 1981)1; a mere scintilla of evidence is not enough to create a genuine issue of fact. Young v. City of Palm Bay, 358 F.3d 859, 860 (11th Cir. 2004); Kesinger ex rel. Estate of Kesinger v. Herrington, 381 F.3d 1243, 1249-1250 (11th Cir. 2004). If the non-movant's evidence is so thoroughly discredited by the rest of the record evidence that no reasonable jury could accept it, the evidence fails to establish the existence of a genuine issue of fact requiring a jury determination. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1776, 167 L. Ed. 2d 686 (2007) ( ); Lewis v. City of West Palm Beach, Fla., 561 F.3d 1288, 1290 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2009). If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249 (citations omitted); accord Spence v. Zimmerman, 873 F.2d 256 (11th Cir.1989). Furthermore, the court must "view the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden," so there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. The non-movant need not be given the benefit of every inference but only of every reasonable inference. Brown v. City of Clewiston, 848 F.2d 1534, 1540 n. 12 (11th Cir. 1988). Utilizing these standards, the court undertakes the analysis of whether the moving party has shown that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
For purposes of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving defendant, are as follows.2 Sierra is a food manufacturer that supplies products to food distributers such as the defendant, SnacLite, LLC ("SnacLite"). Tim Petro ("Petro") is the president and only member of SnacLite. During the summer of 2014, Sierra provided SnacLite and its customers with food products ("Goods"), and billed SnacLite accordingly. Under SnacLite's business model, when SnacLite receives an order from one of itscustomers, it contracts with companies like Sierra, who manufacture and ship the product directly to SnacLite's customers. Upon delivery to SnacLite's customer, SnacLite is paid by its customer, and it in turn pays the manufacturer/shipper. Therefore, when Sierra "provided" the Goods to SnacLite, it actually shipped the Goods to SnacLite's customers on SnacLite's behalf.
The Goods at issue were delivered between July 2, 2014, and September 19, 2014, and were priced at $334,167.38. Sierra has included in its evidentiary submission SnacLite's purchase orders, Sierra's invoices, and the proofs of delivery for the Goods. (Pl. Exh. C-1). SnacLite did not reject any of the goods listed in the invoices, nor has SnacLite previously asserted that the Goods were not delivered pursuant to the contract with Sierra.3 SnacLite received the invoices from Sierra, payment of which was due within thirty days of the invoice date. SnacLite did not object to any of the invoices. In addition to the invoices for goods, Sierra issued an invoice for $500.00 in freight charges.4 Sierra also purchased unfinished materials in the amount of $70,676.46 to fulfill SnacLite's orders, for which Sierra contends that SnacLite also is liable.
Between September 30, 2014, and December 3, 2014, Petro, as president of SnacLite, sent eight e-mails to Sierra, discussing SnacLite's attempts to pay amounts owed to Sierra. Another e-mail exchange took place between the parties in February 2015. On February 6, 2015, Petro requested that Sierra run another order for SnacLite. Rodney Walker ("Walker"), president and C.E.O. of Sierra Food Group, Inc., replied on behalf of Sierra, stating that the request would be discussed at the annual board meeting and asking when Sierra could expect payment for the past-due invoices. In his e-mail reply, Walker then listed invoices from July 2014 to November 2014, with the amount owed totaling $404,843.84. (Pl. Exh. C-4). There was no further reply to the February 6, 2015, e-mail. On February 11, 2015, Walker e-mailed Petro, within the same e-mail thread begun on February 6, and notified him that Sierra would be able to run the new order. Walker's e-mail also stated, however, that "we need to know what the plan is to repay the past due invoices below." (Pl. Exh. C-4). Walker attached a copy of the February 6 email containing the invoices. The amount owed was again stated as totaling $404,843.84. Petro replied to the e-mail on February 11, 2015, saying, (Pl. Exh. C-4) (errors in the original). SnacLite has made no payments toward the invoices, and Sierra filed suit for collection of the invoices on December 15, 2014.
In its primary argument for summary judgment, Sierra claims it is entitled to summary judgment for the amount of $404,843.84 because SnacLite has admitted its liability for that amount. Sierra supports its argument by citing the emails exchanged between the parties in 2014 and 2015, as well as the statement of account dated December 31, 2014. (Pl. Exh. C-2, C-3, C-4). Although the 2014 e-mails appear to admit liability for some amount, there is no discussion of a sum certain or an acknowledgement of any specific amount owed by SnacLite. Also, there is no evidence of whether the statement of account found in plaintiff's exhibit C-2 ever was provided to SnacLite.5 This leaves...
To continue reading
Request your trial