DIAMOND LIFE LIGHTING MFG (HK) LTD. v. PICASSO LIGHTING, INC. et al
Filing
47
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 31 Pltf's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 9/14/2011. (gxh)
<![CDATA[
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DIAMOND LIFE LIGHTING MFG (HK)
LTD.,
Civil Action No.: 10-161(PGS)
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
v.
PICASSO LIGHTING, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Diamond Life Lighting MFG’s motion for
summary judgment.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates 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). A genuine dispute as to a material fact exists only if a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Such a fact is considered material only if the fact may affect the outcome of the litigation based upon
the substantive law. Ibid. “In considering a motion for summary judgment, a district court may not
make credibility determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence; instead, the non-moving
party's evidence ‘is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.’”
Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255).
1
After a party files a motion for summary judgment, along with supporting papers, the non-moving
party “must produce specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Jersey Cent.
Power & Light Co. v. Twp. of Lacey, 772 F.2d 1103, 1109 (3d Cir. 1985) (citation omitted).
“[U]nsupported allegations . . . and pleadings are insufficient to repel summary judgment.” Schoch
v. First Fid. Bancorporation, 912 F.2d 654, 657 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).
Facts
Diamond Life is in the business of manufacturing a wide variety of lighting
products, including chandeliers and other types of lighting fixtures.
Picasso is in the business of designing and selling on a wholesale basis a wide variety of
lighting products, including chandeliers and other types of lighting fixtures.
Commencing in the late 1990's Picasso began using Diamond Life as its manufacturer of
lighting products.
Each order was filled by Picasso sending Diamond Life a prototype of the lighting product
to be built. Diamond Life would then build a production prototype allegedly using the same materials
and the identical specifications and dimensions as the sample sent by Picasso. The purpose of this
was to demonstrate to Picasso exactly what the manufactured product would look like, and the
materials from which it was made. Diamond Life would then send the production prototype to
Picasso for its approval.
Upon receiving Picasso's approval, Diamond Life would ascertain the cost of manufacturing
each item and would thereafter communicate a cost to Picasso. If Picasso agreed with the price
(which sometimes involved negotiation of the price), a purchase order was transmitted from Picasso
to Diamond Life for the number of units desired.
2
On August 25, 2005, Diamond Life and Picasso entered into a written agreement (the
"Agreement") dated September 30, 2005 whereby Diamond Life agreed to extend Picasso credit of
up to three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) toward the purchase of goods manufactured by
Diamond Life (Wong Dec. Para. 9). It was thereafter extended to $700,000.
Diamond Life contends that it is owed more than $800,000; but Picasso believes that there
should be a set-off due to the following disputed facts.
As set forth above, Diamond Life contends that every product "ever made conformed exactly
to the materials and specifications which were ordered by Picasso." Picasso sees it differently. It
denied the above and alleges that although Diamond Life credited Picasso $85,000.00 because it was
using inferior materials, thereafter, "Picasso discovered that aside from the brass v. steel issue, that
Diamond Life had been using vacuum gold instead of the 24k gold plating, thereby deceiving
Picasso”; and "plaintiff was manufacturing its goods with inferior material, such as substituting steel
where brass was sacrificed, and using vacuum gold plating instead of 24K gold plaiting on at least
three of Picasso's product lines."
Another fact issue revolves around the credit agreement wherein Diamond Life extended
$700,000 of credit to Picasso on fixtures it produced. Picasso alleges that in breach of the credit
agreement, Diamond Life would retain fixtures until a payment was made. Despite the credit
arrangement's ceiling, this retention of fixtures often caused Picasso to delay delivery to its
customers which resulted in a significant loss of business. Diamond life contends that it only retained
fixtures when the balance owed by Picasso exceeded $700,000.00.
Both of these issues present factual disputes which a jury must resolve.
3
In conclusion, summary judgment is denied.
IT IS on this 14th day of September, 2011
ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.
s/Peter G. Sheridan
PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
