International Aerospace Group, Corp. v. Evans Meridians Ltd., No. 1:2016cv24997 - Document 45 (S.D. Fla. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 33 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 1/26/2018. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
International Aerospace Group, Corp. v. Evans Meridians Ltd. Doc. 45 UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT CO U RT SO U TH ERN D ISTR ICT O F FLO R ID A M IAM IDIV ISIO N CASE N O .16-cv-24997-KlN G INTERNA TION AL AERO SPA CE GROU P,CORP, Plaintiff, EVAN S M ERIDIA N S,LTD , Defendant. / O RDER G RAN TIN G DEFEN DAN T'S M O TION FO R SU M M A RY JUD G M EN T TH IS CAU SE com esbefore the Courtupon D efendantEvans M eridians,LTD 'S ($dEvans'')M otionforSum maryJudgment(DE #33),filed on December4,2017.Therein, Evansseekssummaryjudgmenton a11ofPlaintiff'sclaimsforrelief,and on CountsIand 11 of Evans's counterclaim .This m atter is fully briefed,1 and as discussed below , the Court finds that Evans' Motion should be granted, and summary judgment entered againstPlaintiffon Counts 1, Il,and l1IofitsCom plaint,2and in favorofEvans on counts Iand 11ofits Counterclaim . 1. Background ThiscasearisesoutofthesalebyPlaintiffofsevenjetenginesto Defendant,the com pletion of w hich sale was interrupted by the United States G overnm ent and allegations ofsalesortransfersofenginesto lran. 1Plaintiffhastiled itsResponsein Opposition (DE #40), and Defendanthasfiled itsReplyin SupportofSumm ary Judgment(DE . #42). 2 O n the same day it filed its M otion for Sum m ary Judgment, D efendant tiled a M otion for Judgment on the Pleadingsdirectedatthesesamethreecounts.In lightoftheCourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmentasto thesethree counts,the M otion forJudgm enton thePleadingsism oot. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Briefly stated, in a series of contracts3 Plaintiff agreed to sell, and Defendant agreed to purchase,a totalofseven airplanejetenginesforthe sum of$10,550,000.ln thefirstcontract,dated October28,2013 (the tTirstAgreemenf'),Plaintiffagreed to sell fourengines(serialnumbered 695244,690251,695219,and 530258).On December23, 2013 the parties entered into an Addendum to the FirstA greem entwhich substituted one ofthe originalfourengines(690251,priced at$2,900,000)fora differentengine (serial numbered 690352,and priced at$2,500,00).On November25,2013,thepartiesentered into a second contract(the tssecond Agreemenf')for the purchase of three additional engines(serialnumbered 517538,530450.and 530167)foratotalof$2,400,000. Betw een O ctober25,2013 and D ecem ber27,2013,D efendantm ade paym entsto Plaintifftotaling $11,023,090.90 (inclusive of costs contemplated under the contracts). Accordingly, D efendant paid Plaintiff a11 m oneys owed under the contracts. Plaintiff shipped a1l seven engines to D efendant, but only four of those seven engines w ere delivered (engines 695244, 695219, and 530258 from the First Agreem ent and Addendum thereto;and engine 530450 from the Second Agreement).One engine from theFirstAgreementand Addendum thereto (690352)and two enginesfrom the Second Agreement(517538 and 530167)werenotdelivered becauseofa directiveissued by the United States G overnm ent, as D efendant was under suspicion of attem pting to ship enginesto Iran. Pursuantto theforcemajeure clausesin the Agreem ents,and because theengines could notbe delivered, D efendant cancelled the contracts. Plaintiff did not refund to Defendant any of the m oneys Defendant paid for the three engines it w as not able to 3W hich having appended the contractsto itsComplaintand having based itsclaim sthroughoutthecase upon, and having adm itted in discovery that the agreements govern the parties' dispute, Plaintiff cannot now genuinely dispute- asitattemptsto doin itsopposition- whichagreem entsgovern. 2 deliver.Instead,Plaintiffkeptthose engines,and Defendant'sfunds,and hassince re-sold two ofthe enginesforatotalof$940,000,and hasstripped down and sold offforparts thethird (foranundisclosed sum). Plaintifffiled suitagainstDefendant,alleging threecounts:(l)Breach ofContract, (11)AccountStated,and(111)UnjustEnrichment.Plaintiff'sComplaintalleges,asrelates to the Addendum to the FirstAgreement,thatthe engine substituted for(690251,priced at $2,900,000,replaced by engine 690352) remained priced at $2,900,000.Plaintiff alleges thatD efendant failed to pay this am ount,and accordingly owes a difference of $400,000.However,the Addendum,which Plaintiff attached and incorporated into its complaint,m akesclearthatthepurchaseprice forthisnew engineisnot$2,900,000,but $2,500,000- adifferenceof$400,000. D efendantfiled a Counterclaim againstPlaintiff,alleging three counts ofits own: (1)Breach of Contractbased on Plaintiff's failure to deliver engine 690352 under the FirstAgreementand Addendum thereto orreturn the purchase price paid therefore,(11) Breach of Contract based on Plaintiff's failure to deliver engines 517538 and 530167 underthe Second Agreementorreturn the purchaseprice paid therefore,and (111)unjust enrichmentbased upon Plaintiff'sretainingthesubjectenginesandthepurchasemoney, and selling offthose enginesand retaining theproceedsofthose sales aswell. Il. Sum m ary Judgm entStandard ésrf'he Courtshallgrantsum mary judgmentifthe movant shows thatthere is no genuinedispute asto any materialfactand themovantisentitled tojudgmentasamatter oflaw .''Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a).A party asserting thata factcannotbe oris genuinely disputed m ust support the assertion by Sdciting to particular parts of m aterials in the record,including depositions,docum ents,electronically stored inform ation,affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,interrogatory answ ers or other m aterials' ,or showing thatm aterials cited do notestablish the absence orpresence ofa genuine dispute,orthatan adverse party cannot produceadmissible evidenceto supportthefact.''Id.at56(c)(l).''lndetermining whether summaryjudgmentisappropriate,thefactsand inferencesfrom thefactsareviewed in the lightm ostfavorable to the non-m oving party,and the burden isplaced on the m oving party to establish both the absence of a genuine m aterial fact and that it is entitled to judgmentas a matterof law.''M atsushita Elec.Indus.Co.v.Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U .S.574,586-87 (1986). ln opposing amotion forsummaryjudgment,thenon-moving party may notrely solely on the pleadings, but m ust show by affidavits, depositions, answ ers to interrogatories,and adm issionsthatspecific facts existdem onstrating a genuine issue for trial.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.56(c),(e);see also Celotex Corp.v.Catrett,477 U.S.317,32324 (1986).Further,the existence of a iiscintilla''of evidence in support of the non- movant's position is insufficient' , there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the non-m ovant.Andersen v.Liberty Lobby,Inc.,477 U .S.242, 252 (1986).Likewise,acourtneednotpermitacaseto goto ajurywhentheinferencesthat are draw n from the evidence,and upon which the non-m ovantrelies, are dtim plausible.'' Matsushita,475 U.S.at592-94;Mize v.Jeyerson f7ry Bd.OfEduc.,93 F.3d 739,743 (11th Cir.1996). Atthesummaryjudgmentstage,thejudge'sfunctionisnottoûsweightheevidence and determ ine the truth of the m atter,butto deterlnine w hether there is a genuine issue fortrial.''Anderson,477 U .S.at249.In m aking this determ ination,theC ourtm ustdecide w hich issues are m aterial.A m aterialfactisonethatm ightaffectthe outcom e ofthe case. f#.at 248.ttonly disputes overfacts thatm ightaffectthe outcom e of the suitunder the governing law willproperly preclude the entry ofsummary judgment.Factualdisputes thatare irrelevantorunnecessary willnotbe counted.''f#.The Courtm ustalso deterrnine whether the dispute abouta m aterial factis indeed genuine,thatis,tdif the evidence is such thatareasonablejury could return averdictforthenonmoving party.''Id.;see,e.g., M arine CoatingsofAla.,Inc.v.United States,932F.2d 1370,1375(11th Cir.1991). 111. D iscussion Defendant has demonstrated that it is entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiff'sclaim sforrelief,and on Counts1and 11ofitsCounterclaim .As a prelim inary m atter,in opposing Defendant'sm otion Plaintiffarguesthatsumm ary judgmentwould be inappropriate because Plaintiff is in need of further discovery from D efendant. H owever,as detailed in the Court'sOrderD enying Plaintiff's M otion to Compeland for Extension ofTim e to Com plete D iscovery,Plaintiff'sow n delay- nearly 10 m onthsafter entry of the Scheduling O rder- in seeking any discovery from Defendant is the chief reason foritslack ofevidence necessary to prove its claim s. As to Plaintiff's claim s forbreach of contract and account stated,D efendanthas dem onstrated thatitdid pay Plaintiffallsum s due underthe Agreem entsforthe purchase of the agreed upon engines, and that the $400,000 underpayment alleged in the Complaintis a function of an errorin drafting the Com plaintnotin accordance with the terms of the agreements. W ith respect to Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, Defendanthasdem onstrated thaton thisrecord Plaintiffcannotprove thatDefendantw as unjustly enriched in any way,and in factthatitisPlaintiffwho retained notonly the subjectengines,butalso allpurchasemoneyspaid therefor,aswellasadditionalmoneys for the re-sale of two of the engines, and stripping and re-sale of the third for parts. Accordingly,Defendantisentitled to summary judgmentagainstPlaintiffon allthree countsalleged in the Com plaint. As for Defendant's counterclaim s for breach of contract against Plaintiff,it is undisputed and Plaintiff admitsthatit retained the three subject engines and has not refunded Defendantany ofthe purchase m oneys paid therefore.Accordingly,Defendant isentitled to summaryjudgmentagainstPlaintiffon CountsIand 11ofitsCounterclaim. Therefore, it is O RD ER ED , A DJU D GED, and D ECREED that D efendant's M otion for Summary Judgment (DE #33) be,and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Defendant'sM otion forJudgm enton the PleadingsisDENIED as m oot. DO NE and O R DERED in Cham bersatthe Jam esLawrence K ing FederalJustice Building and United StatesCourthouse,M iam i,Florida this26th day ofJanuary,2018. V p ' & ' AM ES LA W REN CE K IN G UN ITED STATES DISTRI Cc:A 11CounselofRecord , UD GE
]]>
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.
