Life Celebration Inc v. Xerox Corp, No. 20-2921 (3d Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 20-2921 _____________ LIFE CELEBRATION, INC., Appellant v. XEROX CORPORATION ______________ Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court No. 2:18-CV-02941) District Judge: Hon. Gene E.K. Pratter Argued May 20, 2021 Before: McKee, Restrepo, Fuentes, Circuit Judges. (Opinion filed: June 11, 2021) Joseph R. Podraza, Jr. [ARGUED] William H. Trask Lamb McErlane One South Broad Street, Suite 1500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Counsel for Appellant Benjamin D. Hartwell Ward Greenberg Heller & Reidy 1835 Market Street, Suite 650 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tony R. Sears [ARGUED] Ward Greenberg Heller & Reidy 1800 Bausch & Lomb Place Legacy Tower Rochester, NY 14604 Counsel for Appellee _______________________ OPINION* _______________________ McKee, Circuit Judge. Life Celebration appeals the dismissal of its claim that Xerox breached its duty as a landlord by failing to inspect and maintain the HVAC system and other environmental controls in the space Life Celebration subleased from Xerox. The district court held that Life Celebration did not present evidence that Xerox owed the prerequisite duty and granted summary judgment. We agree and will affirm. In a thorough and well-reasoned Memorandum Opinion, the district court explained why it granted summary judgment.1 The court carefully considered and rejected Life Celebration’s argument that Xerox owed the asserted duty. Life Celebration failed to provide evidence from the Managed Service Agreement between it and Xerox or present arguments based on relevant principles of property law that this duty indeed existed. We can add little to elaborate on the district court’s analysis and discussion. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 Life Celebration, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., No. 18-2941, 2020 WL 5096945 (E.D Pa Aug. 28, 2020). 2 Accordingly, we will affirm the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in its August 28, 2020 Memorandum and Order. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
