Opinion
Case No. 2:04-cv-523.
December 15, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
This is an action filed by plaintiff Tina E. Lenker against her employer, defendant National Service Industries, Inc., doing business as Atlantic Envelope Company. The defendant is in the business of manufacturing envelopes, and plaintiff works as a sales representative for defendant. Plaintiff alleges in her second amended complaint that defendant breached her contract of employment by failing to pay plaintiff commissions based on the defendant's actual profit margins on the orders generated by plaintiff. Plaintiff further claims that defendant breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing inherent in that contract by failing to exercise good faith in calculating her commissions. Plaintiff also asserts claims for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and fraud.
Defendant has moved for summary judgment on plaintiff's claims in a motion for summary judgment filed on December 23, 2005, (Doc. # 65) and a supplemental motion for summary judgment filed on May 15, 2006 (Doc. # 95). The procedure for granting summary judgment is found in Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), which provides:
The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970). Summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is genuine, "that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). However, summary judgment is appropriate if the opposing party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). See also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986).
In regard to the breach of contract claim, the issue is whether the employment contract and related commission schedules require the payment of plaintiff's commissions based on the estimated margin or actual margin. Upon review of the materials submitted by the parties, and court concludes that the contract provisions are ambiguous, and that genuine issues of material fact exist which are sufficient to raise a jury question and render summary judgment inappropriate in this case. Since genuine issues of fact exist concerning the terms of the contract between the parties, summary judgment is also not appropriate on plaintiff's allegations of lack of good faith and fair dealing in defendant's performance of the contract.
Defendant also argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claims of unjust enrichment, quantum meruit and fraud, since, under Georgia law, those claims are subsumed by the contract and may not be asserted separately. Plaintiff contends in response that she would be entitled to assert those claims if the contract in question is found to be illusory and unenforceable due to defendant's unilateral, after-the-fact implementation of changes in the method of calculating commissions. The court concludes that summary judgment on these claims would be premature.
Defendant's motions for summary judgment are denied.