Opinion
02 C-3511
August 8, 2002
This case involves a contract dispute between Orval Kent Food Company, Inc. ("Orval Kent") and Rocor International. Orval Kent entered into a Transportation Services Agreement (the Agreement") with Consolidated Transportation Management Services, a division of Rocor International (collectively, "Rocor"), whereby Orval Kent engaged Rocor to arrange for transportation and traffic management advisory services for Orval Kent's food products. Pursuant to the Agreement, Rocor agreed to obtain and pay the carriers and provide Orval Kent a summary of the carriers' charges. Orval Kent, in turn, agreed to pay Rocor for the amounts charged.
The dispute arose after Rocor obtained but failed to pay the carriers, notwithstanding that Orval Kent made its corresponding payments to Rocor. Orval Kent was contacted by certain of the carries that had not been paid and informed that they would not ship Orval Kent's goods without payment. In response, Orval Kent made payments directly to the carriers, such payments duplicative of payments it had already made to Rocor.
Orval Kent now moves for partial summary judgment on its breach of contract claim, seeking payment from Rocor in the amount of the payments Orval Kent made to the carriers. Orval Kent argues that the record reveals, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Rocor, that no reasonable jury could find in Rocor's favor. See Celotex Coip. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). Summary judgment is proper if the record before the court shows that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
Indeed, there is very little dispute about the facts of this case. The parties differ in their interpretation of Rocor's contractual obligations, what constitutes a breach of the Agreement and what obligation Rocor has to Orval Kent for its payments to the carriers. The Agreement is governed by Georgia law. Orval Kent argues that Rocor's failure to pay the carriers, constituted a breach of the Agreement and that it "had" to make the payments to mitigate its damages. Orval Kent also argues that it "had" to make the payments otherwise it would not have received the goods that carrierswere to transport.
The parties are in almost complete agreement on the relevant facts, even without taking into account Orval Kent's argument that all of the facts in Orval Kent's statement are deemed admitted because Rocor's response to Orval Kent's Statement of Undisputed Facts did not comply with Local Rule 56.1.
Notably absent from Orval Kent's argument, however, is an examination of how these facts, entitle it to judgment as a matter of law. Orval Kent does not examine or present Rocor's actions in light of Georgia's body of contract law. Indeed, Orval Kent does not cite any law, Georgia or otherwise, on breach, cover or damage mitigation. Orval Kent certainly appears to have the moral high ground in this situation, and it may well have the law on its side, but to prevail on summary judgment, it must argue. from the law.
Orval Kent does offer some case law about courts supplying a reasonable time for performance if the time is not specified in the contract, but this applies to Rocor's obligation to pay the carriers, which is not relevant until the obligation between Orval Kent and Rocor is established.
For the foregoing reasons, Orval Kent's motion for partial summary judgment on Count I (breach of contract) is DENIED.