Opinion
21-cv-10499
07-29-2024
HELLO FARMS LICENSING MI, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GR VENDING MI, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 80); (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF HELLO FARMS LICENSING MI, LLC'S CORRECTED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 128); AND (3) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE REMARKS (ECF NO. 132); AND TERMINATING AS MOOT REMAINING MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 88, 89, 119, AND 143)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On July 29, 2024, the Court held a hearing on (1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendants' SJ Motion”) (ECF No. 80) and (2) Plaintiff Hello Farms Licensing MI, LLC'S Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff's SJ Motion”) (ECF No. 128). For the reasons stated on the record it is HEREBY ORDERED:
• Defendants' SJ Motion is DENIED.
• Plaintiff's SJ Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED to the extent it seeks summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on Defendants' counterclaim for statutory conversion (Count IV of Defendants' Second Amended Counterclaims, ECF No. 36.) It is also GRANTED to the extent it seeks summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on that portion of Count I of Defendants' Second Amended Counterclaims in which Defendants allege that Plaintiff committed a breach of contract by delivering product to Defendants (which Defendants accepted) that did not meet the parties' agreed-upon specifications. To the extent Defendants wish to proceed on that theory, Defendants must proceed on a breach of warranty claim. In all other respects Plaintiff's SJ Motion is DENIED.
• Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Remarks (ECF No. 132) is GRANTED because the Court believes that the request to file the remarks is appropriate.
• All other pending motions (ECF Nos. 88, 89, 119, and 143) are TERMINATED AS MOOT in light of the Court's other rulings as set forth above.
During an earlier hearing on May 8, 2024, the Court made some observations on the record concerning what the Court and the parties have called Defendants' illegality defense to Plaintiff's claims, and some of those observations may conflict, at least to some extent, with the Court's reasons for its ruling reflected above as explained on the record on July 29, 2024. The Court's earlier comments were preliminary in nature. The Court made its final observations and stated the final basis for its ruling on July 29, 2024, after doing substantial additional research, review, and analysis of the illegality defense.
IT IS SO ORDERED.