Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aiken Hospitality Group LLC v. HD Supply Facilities Maintenance Ltd.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division

May 15, 2018

Aiken Hospitality Group, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
HD Supply Facilities Maintenance, Ltd., Defendant. HD Supply Facilities Maintenance, Ltd., Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
N3A Manufacturing Inc., d/b/a Hotelure, Inc., Third-Party Defendant.

          ORDER AND OPINION

         I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         The court adopts the relevant factual and procedural background noted in its Order (ECF No. 136) denying without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 81). Subsequently, the court will only recite herein facts and procedure pertinent to the analysis of Plaintiff's Refiled Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 141).

         On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as to HD Supply Facilities Maintenance, Ltd.'s (“HD Supply”) second counterclaim for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act. (ECF No. 81.) On March 19, 2018, the court held a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 81).[1] (ECF No. 135.) On March 22, 2018, the court denied without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 81) with leave to refile within ten (10) days of the entry of the Order. (ECF No. 136.) On April 2, 2018, Plaintiff refiled its Motion for Summary Judgment addressing both of HD Supply's counterclaims.[2] (ECF No. 141.) HD Supply responded (ECF No. 143) to Plaintiff's Motion, and Plaintiff replied (ECF No. 148).

         Before the court is Plaintiff's Refiled Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant HD Supply's counterclaims for breach of contract and breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act. (ECF No. 141.) For the reasons stated below, the court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 141).

         II. JURISDICTION

         The court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as Plaintiff and HD Supply are diverse parties, and the amount in controversy is greater than $ 75, 000, exclusive of interests and costs. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2 ¶¶ 2, 4); (ECF No. 1-1 at 4-5 ¶¶ 1-2, 9.)

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         Summary judgment should be granted “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). A fact is “material” if proof of its existence or nonexistence would affect the disposition of the case under the applicable law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). A genuine question of material fact exists where, after reviewing the record as a whole, the court finds that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. at 248.

         In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Perini Corp. v. Perini Constr., Inc., 915 F.2d 121, 124 (4th Cir. 1990) (citing Pignons S.A. De Mecanique v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482, 486 (1st Cir. 1981)). The nonmoving party may not oppose a motion for summary judgment with mere allegations or denials of the movant's pleading, but instead must “set forth specific facts” demonstrating a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252; Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1012 (4th Cir. 1991). All that is required to deny a motion for summary judgment is that “sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249 (citing First Nat'l Bank of Arizona v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253 (1968)). “Mere unsupported speculation . . . is not enough to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Ennis v. Nat'l Ass'n of Bus. & Educ. Radio, Inc., 53 F.3d 55, 62 (4th Cir. 1995). “[T]he burden [to show no genuine issue of material fact] on the moving party may be discharged by ‘showing'-that is, pointing out to the district court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325.

         “In [ ] a situation [where a party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish an essential element of their case, on which they will bear the burden of proof at trial], there can be ‘no genuine issue as to any material fact, ' since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The moving party is ‘entitled to a judgment as a matter of law' because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.” Id. at 322-23.

         IV. ANALYSIS

         HD Supply filed two (2) counterclaims against Plaintiff for breach of contract and for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act. (ECF No. 21 at 6-7 ¶¶ 31-43.) HD Supply brought these counterclaims on the basis that HD Supply maintained an operations agreement with Plaintiff to provide Plaintiff with “certain products necessary for the day to day operation of its hotel” and Plaintiff has refused to satisfy its unpaid balance. (ECF No. 86 at 1-2.)

         Plaintiff's initial Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 81) only addressed HD Supply's second counterclaim for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act. The court allowed Plaintiff to refile its Motion; thus, the court finds no issue with Plaintiff's expansion of the substance of its Refiled Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 141) to include HD Supply's first counterclaim for breach of contract.

         When the court sits in diversity jurisdiction it must apply federal procedural law and state substantive law. See Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 427 (1996). Under South Carolina law, to establish a breach of contract claim “the burden [is] upon the [claiming party] to prove the contract, its breach, and the damages caused by such breach.” Maro v. Lewis, 697 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.