All Star Dairy Association, Inc. v. Amber Trucking, Inc., No. 1:2013cv00947 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 17 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/23/14: Judgment shall be entered in Plaintiff's favor in the amount of $106,040.40 ($96,136.56 + $9,903.84). (CASE CLOSED) (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ALL STAR DAIRY ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, 10 11 Case No. 1:13-cv-00947-SKO ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. (Doc. 17) 12 13 14 15 AMBER TRUCKING, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants. _____________________________________/ 16 I. 17 18 INTRODUCTION On May 7, 2014, Plaintiff All Star Dairy Association, Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed a motion for 19 summary judgment. (Doc. 17.) Amber Trucking, Inc. ("Defendant") failed to file any opposition 20 to the motion. On June 10, 2014, the Court determined the matter was suitable for decision 21 without oral argument, the matter was taken under submission, and the hearing was vacated. 22 (Doc. 18.) 23 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 24 25 II. BACKGROUND This is a diversity suit that arises out of a written agreement involving the purchase of tires 26 and other services. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of providing discount pricing for products 27 and services used by its members. (Cmplt. ¶ 5; Doc. 17-1, Declaration of Jeff Hoogerheide 28 ("Hoogerheide Decl."), ¶ 9.) Plaintiff uses the combined buying power of its members to 1 negotiate agreements with various suppliers to obtain volume price discounts for its members. 2 (Cmplt. ¶ 5; Doc. 17-1, Hoogerheide Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff's members order from suppliers, the 3 suppliers invoice Plaintiff, and Plaintiff forwards the supplier's invoice to the members with a 4 cover invoice from Plaintiff. (Doc. 17-1, Hoogerheide Decl., ¶ 9.) Defendant is a freight shipping 5 and trucking company that hauls general freight. (Cmplt., ¶ 6; Doc. 8, Answer, ¶ 6.) 6 On April 14, 2010, Defendant, through its agent Jatinder S. Kaleka, executed a Credit 7 Application and Membership Agreement with Plaintiff (the "Agreement"). (Cmplt., ¶ 7; Doc. 8, 8 Answer, ¶ 7; Doc. 17-1, Hoogerheide Decl., ¶¶ 10-11.) Pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiff 9 furnished Defendant with a line of credit for the purchase of goods and services to be used in 10 connection with Defendant's business. (Cmplt, ¶ 8; Doc. 8, Answer, ¶ 8; Doc. 17-1, Hoogerheide 11 Decl., ¶ 12.) Defendant paid a membership fee and agreed to the terms of the Agreement. (Doc. 12 17-1, Hoogerheide Decl., ¶ 12.) 13 The Agreement provides that Defendant would pay all invoices billed by Plaintiff for all 14 goods and services Defendant purchased. (Cmplt., ¶ 8; Doc. 8, Answer ¶ 8; Doc. 17-1, 15 Hoogerheide Decl., ¶ 12.) According to Plaintiff, from the time the Agreement was entered in 16 April 2010 until January 2013, Defendant used the line of credit to purchase tires and related 17 services for its fleet of trucks, Plaintiff issued invoices, and Defendant paid the invoices. (Doc. 18 17-1, Hoogerheide Decl., ¶ 14.) 19 Beginning with the invoice issued to Defendant in February 15, 2013, however, Defendant 20 allegedly breached the agreement by failing to pay the invoices as they were delivered. (Doc. 1721 1, Hoogerheide Decl., ¶ 15.) While Defendant continued to make purchases for two more months, 22 it refused to make any payments for those purchases. (Cmplt, ¶ 11; Doc. 17-1, Hoogerheide Decl., 23 ¶ 16.) Plaintiff maintains it has never received payment from Defendant on 25 outstanding 24 invoices, and seeks to recover $96,136.56 that Plaintiff claims is due and owing under the 25 Agreement. 26 27 28 2 1 2 III. A. 3 DISCUSSION Standard of Review Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits show that 4 there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [that] the movant is entitled to judgment as 5 a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of 6 the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a 7 material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for 8 the nonmoving party. See id. The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of 9 identifying those portions of the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits or declarations which 10 demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 11 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it 12 must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the 13 moving party. On an issue for which the opposing party will have the burden of proof at trial, 14 however, the moving party need only point out "that there is an absence of evidence to support the 15 nonmoving party's case." Id. at 325. 16 Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the 17 pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts showing that there is a 18 genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The court is only concerned with disputes over 19 material facts and "factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted." 20 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. It is not the task of the district court to scour the record in search of a 21 genuine issue of triable fact. Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). The 22 nonmoving party has the burden of identifying with reasonable particularity the evidence that 23 precludes summary judgment. Id. If the nonmoving party fails to make this showing, "the moving 24 party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323 (internal 25 quotation marks and citation omitted). 26 B. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 27 A district court may not grant a motion for summary judgment solely because the opposing 28 party has failed to file an opposition. See Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488, 1494-95 & n.4 (9th 3 1 Cir. 1994) (unopposed motion may be granted only after the court determines that there are not 2 material issues of fact). This is so even if the failure to file an opposition violates a local rule of 3 the court. See Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1182-83 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, Defendant has 4 failed to file any opposition to Plaintiff's motion. Therefore, the Court considers whether Plaintiff 5 has met its burden to show that there is an absence of genuine issues of material facts. The Parties' Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts1 6 1. 7 On April 14, 2010, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written contract. Pursuant to the 8 terms of the contract, Plaintiff agreed to furnish Defendant with a line of credit. Defendant agreed 9 to pay all amounts borrowed under the line of credit within a specified number of days after 10 receipt of an invoice from Plaintiff for Defendant's purchases. Defendant used the line of credit to 11 purchase goods and services, including tires for its fleet of trucks. Plaintiff performed all 12 covenants and conditions required of it under the terms of the contract, and issued invoices to 13 Defendant for purchases made pursuant to the contract. Between February 15, 2013, and April 26, 14 2013, Plaintiff sent numerous invoices to Defendant relating to outstanding amounts owed for 15 Defendant's purchases under the line of credit. Defendant breached the contract by failing to 16 repay the amounts borrowed under the line of credit. The principal amount due and owing under 17 the contract from Defendant to Plaintiff is $96,136.56. The interest balance due under the contract 18 is $9,903.84 as of June 11, 2014. 19 2. 20 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice 21 notice of Plaintiff's complaint filed on June 20, 2013, and Defendant's Answer filed on August 1. 22 2013. The Court does not need to judicially notice the pleadings in the current proceeding to 23 consider them. Estate of Cartledge v. Columbia Cas. Co., No. 2:11-cv-2623-WBS-GGH, 2011 24 WL 5884255, * 2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011). Thus, Plaintiff's request for judicial notice of these 25 pleadings is denied as moot. 26 27 28 1 Filed concurrently with its motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff submits a Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("Joint Statement"). Prior to filing the statement, Plaintiff asserts its counsel met and conferred with counsel for Defendant and confirmed that the facts in the Joint Statement are undisputed. (Doc. 17-11.) 4 1 3. 2 In California, "[a] cause of action for breach of contract requires proof of the following Plaintiff is Entitled to Summary Judgment for Breach of Contract 3 elements: (1) existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance; 4 and (3) defendant's breach; and (4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach." CDF 5 Firefighters v. Maldonado, 158 Cal. App. 4th 1226, 1239 (2008). 6 Plaintiff contends that a valid contract was formed between the parties on April 14, 2010, 7 which Defendant materially breached by failing to pay the amounts owed. Plaintiff seeks contract 8 damages in the amount of $96,136.56. 9 After Plaintiff filed suit, Defendant filed an Answer (Doc. 8) and subsequently served 10 responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission. (Doc. 17-5, Declaration of C. Fredrick Meine III 11 ("Meine Decl."), ¶¶ 6-7; Doc. 17-6, Exhibits D; Doc. 17-7, Exhibit E.) The material facts of this 12 case, taken from declarations submitted by Plaintiff,2 Defendant's responses to Requests for 13 Admission (Doc. 17-5, Meine Decl., Exhibit E) and Defendant's Answer (Doc. 8), are not in 14 dispute because Defendant has not filed opposing affidavits, declarations, or deposition 15 transcripts. Moreover, Defendant has admitted all material elements of the breach of contract 16 action in its responses to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions and in its Answer. 17 a. 18 19 No Material Dispute Regarding the Existence of the April 14, 2010, Agreement Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that Defendant, by and through its agent Jatinder S. 20 Kaleka, executed the Agreement with Plaintiff so that Plaintiff would extend credit to Defendant 21 for the purpose of purchasing tires on credit. (Cmplt., ¶ 7.) Pursuant to the terms of the 22 agreement, Plaintiff agreed to and did furnish tires to Defendant for which Defendant agreed to 23 pay Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the invoice. (Cmplt., ¶ 11.) In its answer, Defendant 24 admitted that it entered into the Agreement with Plaintiff through its agent Jatinder S. Kaleka, and 25 that it made subsequent purchases from Plaintiff pursuant to the Agreement. (Doc. 8, Answer, ¶¶ 26 7, 11.) Defendant further admitted in its answer that, under the terms of the Agreement, Plaintiff 27 extended credit to Defendant for the purpose of purchasing tires, and Defendant would pay 28 2 (Doc. 17-1, Hoogerheide Decl.; Doc. 17-5, Meine Decl.") 5 1 Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the invoices issued by Plaintiff to Defendant. (Doc. 8, Answer, 2 ¶¶ 7-8.) 3 Because Defendant admitted it entered into this Agreement with Plaintiff, there is no 4 material dispute regarding the existence of the Agreement or its terms. Am. Title Ins. Co. v. 5 Lacelaw Corp., 861 F.2d 224, 226 (9th Cir. 1988) (Factual assertions in the operative pleadings 6 are "considered judicial admissions conclusively binding on the party who made them"). 7 8 b. No Material Dispute Regarding Plaintiff's Performance Plaintiff submitted the declaration of Jeff Hoogerheide in support of its motion. Mr. 9 Hoogerheide is the Controller and buyer for Plaintiff, has access to all records relating to accounts 10 for the purchase of tires, and is the custodian of records for Plaintiff. (Doc. 17-1, Hoogerheide 11 Decl., ¶ 5.) Mr. Hoogerheide attests that he is trained to work with account debtors who have 12 defaulted on the terms of their respective Agreements with Plaintiff, and he is familiar with 13 Defendant's entire account history. (Doc. 17-1, Hoogerheide Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.) 14 Mr. Hoogerheide states Plaintiff has performed all its obligations under the terms of the 15 Agreement by providing Defendant with credit to purchase tires, issuing invoices, keeping 16 accurate records of payments made, interest accrued, and fees incurred. (Doc. 17-1, Hoogerheide 17 Decl., ¶ 15.) Defendant has not submitted any declaration or evidence to dispute this fact. As 18 such, there is no material dispute regarding Plaintiff's performance under the terms of the 19 Agreement. 20 21 c. No Material Dispute Regarding Defendant's Breach The parties' Agreement provides that Defendant will "pay all invoices billed by [Plaintiff] 22 for goods and services purchased by [Defendant] and billed through [Plaintiff]." (Hoogerheide 23 Decl., Exhibit A, Doc. 17-2.) Plaintiff maintains that Defendant made purchases through the line 24 of credit extended by Plaintiff, for which Plaintiff invoiced Defendant. Depending on the invoice, 25 full payment was due and owing within 30 to 45 days, but Defendant failed to make any payment 26 on 25 outstanding invoices. In its responses to Requests for Admission, Defendant admitted that 27 each of the 25 outstanding invoices is genuine, that Defendant received each of the 25 outstanding 28 invoices, and that Defendant has not made any payment to Plaintiff on any of the 25 outstanding 6 1 invoices. (Doc. 17-5, Meine Decl., ¶ 7; Doc. 17-6, Def. Resp. to Req. for Admission, Nos. 1-111.) 2 Finally, Defendant admitted it owes Plaintiff $96,136.56 pursuant to the 25 outstanding invoices. 3 (Doc. 17-5, Meine Decl., ¶ 7; Doc. 17-7, Def. Resp. to Req. for Admission, No. 112.) There is no 4 factual dispute that Defendant's failure to pay the outstanding invoices is a material breach of the 5 parties' Agreement. 6 7 d. No Material Dispute as to Damages The final element of breach of contract is the damage to the non-breaching party as a result 8 of the breach. CDF Firefighters, 158 Cal. App. at 1239. There is no material issue of disputed 9 fact with respect to the damages caused by Defendant's breach. In response to Plaintiff's Requests 10 for Admission, Defendant admitted that it had not made any payments to Plaintiff on the 25 11 outstanding invoices, and that it owes Plaintiff $96,136.56 pursuant to those outstanding invoices. 12 (Doc. 17-5, Meine Decl., ¶ 7; Doc. 17-6, Def. Resp. to Req. for Admission, No. 111-12.) Mr. 13 Hoogerheide reviewed the outstanding invoices and confirmed that the amount due and owing is 14 $96,136.56. (Doc. 17-1, Hoogerheide Decl., ¶ 21; Doc. 17-3, Exhibit B.) 15 4. 16 Based on the record before the Court, the undisputed facts show that there was an Conclusion 17 Agreement entered between the parties which was breached by Defendant when it failed to pay 18 Plaintiff the amounts due under 25 outstanding invoices. Plaintiff's papers are sufficient to support 19 its Motion for Summary Judgment and do not on their face reveal a genuine issue of material fact. 20 Pursuant to the foregoing, summary judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is 21 awarded damages in the amount of $96,136.56. 22 C. Plaintiff's Request for $9,903.84 in Prejudgment Interest 23 Plaintiff seeks an award of $9,903.84 in prejudgment interest. "Prejudgment interest is a 24 substantive aspect of a plaintiff's claims, rather than a merely procedural mechanism." Oak 25 Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Sears Roebuck, & Co., 513 F.3d 949, 961 (9th Cir. 2008). In 26 diversity actions, state law governs all awards of prejudgment interest. Lund v. Albrecht, 936 F.2d 27 459, 464-65 (9th Cir. 1991). 28 7 1 "California Civil Code section 3287[(a)] provides that a party is entitled to recover 2 prejudgment interest on an amount awarded as damages from the date that the amount was both 3 (1) due and owing and (2) certain or capable of being made certain by calculation." Uzyel v. 4 Kadisha, 188 Cal. App. 4th 866, 919 (2010). "Damages are certain or capable of being made 5 certain by calculation, or ascertainable, for purposes of Civil Code section 3287[(a)] if the 6 defendant actually knows the amount of damages or could compute that amount from information 7 reasonably available to the defendant." Id. 8 The 25th and final invoice was sent to Defendant on April 26, 2013, which was due to be 9 paid within 30 days. Thus, Defendant's payment on this final invoice was due on or before May 10 27, 2013. (Doc. 17-1, Hoogerheide Decl., ¶ 22; Doc. 17-3, Exhibit B; Doc. 17-4, Exhibit C.) The 11 information regarding the total amount due pursuant to all 25 invoices ($96,136.56) was 12 reasonably available to Defendant, and Defendant could have computed the figure on its own 13 using the invoices sent by Plaintiff. 14 Under Civil Code section 3289(b), "[i]f a contract entered into after January 1, 1986, does 15 not stipulate a legal rate of interest, the obligation shall bear interest at a rate of 10 percent per 16 annum after a breach." Cal. Civ. Code 3289(b). Because Plaintiff's damages derive from the 17 Agreement and the invoices sent by Plaintiff to Defendant, and because neither the Agreement nor 18 the invoices stipulate a legal rate of interest, the $96,136.56 bears ten percent per annum interest 19 from May 27, 2013. Cal. Civ. Code § 3289(a). 20 Plaintiff's interest calculations begin on June 1, 2013, through the date this motion was set 21 for hearing, June 11, 2014. The daily interest is $26.34 on the total amount due. The total interest 22 due on June 11, 2014, was $9,903.84 (376 days x $26.34). 23 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 24 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; 26 2. Judgment shall be entered in Plaintiff's favor in the amount of $106,040.40 27 ($96,136.56 + $9,903.84); 28 8 1 3. 2 3 Any motion for attorney's fees should be filed pursuant to this Court's Local Rules; and 3. This case shall be administratively closed. 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 23, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9
]]>
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.
