Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Three Peas In a Pod, LLC v. Ababy, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division

May 30, 2017

Three Peas In A Pod, LLC
ABABY, Inc., et al.



         Before the Court is Defendant, ABABY, Inc.'s (“Ababy”), Motion For Summary Judgment [Rec. Doc. 79] and Motion For Summary Judgment On Counter Claim [Rec. Doc. 80], as well as Plaintiff, Three Peas In A Pod, LLC's (“Three Peas”), Opposition Memoranda thereto [Rec. Doc. 82; 83]. For the reasons that follow, Ababy's Motions For Summary Judgment will be denied.

         I. Factual Background

         Plaintiff, Three Peas, filed this action for Breach of Contract, Declaratory Judgment, Damages and Petition on Open Account in the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Lafayette Parish, Louisiana against Defendant, Ababy and several other now terminated defendants. R. 1-1. On August 27, 2015, Ababy removed this action pursuant to the Court's diversity jurisdiction. On December 18, 2015, Ababy filed a Counterclaim against Three Peas asserting claims for Breach of Contract and Damages. R. 28.

         Ryan Parrish is the principal of Three Peas.[1] Three Peas customizes and personalizes designs on multiple products, including bedding sets, fleece blankets, pillows, towels and shower curtains, all of which products Three Peas purchases from wholesalers. R. 79-3, p. 7, 9. Three Peas production of its products are typically accomplished through outside printers. Id. at p. 9. Three Peas advertises and sells its services online through internet sites such as Etsy and Zulily. Id. at p. 8. Prior to the transaction at issue, Three Peas had done business with Ababy, when Ababy's other vendors could not fulfill Ababy's orders. Id. at p. 20. This prior business relationship, consisting of between 50 and 100 orders, led to the bulk order transaction at issue. Id. at p. 20-21.

         On November 13, 2014, Ababy placed an order by email for 13, 020 30x40 fleece blankets and 5, 910 70x70 shower curtains each customized and personalized with certain patterns, names, text or designs. R. 82-13 (Exh. M). At the time the order was placed, Three Peas informed Ababy that its printer could only produce 1, 020 shower curtains. Ababy agreed to that order and Three Peas designed, had manufactured and shipped 1, 020 shower curtains. Ababy paid $48, 960.00 for the order. R. 82-17 (Exh. R) .

         Thereafter, Three Peas located another printer that could produce the remaining 4, 890 shower curtains and the 13, 020 fleece blankets in accordance with the original bulk order placed by Ababy. Both parties agreed to move forward with the remainder of the bulk order. R. 82-12 (Exh. L); R. 79-3 (Exh. A), p. 30 - 31. The entire bulk order was for the amount of $500, 130.00, including the $48, 960 paid by Ababy for the original 1, 020 shower curtains. R. 79-3, pp. 27-28.

         On December 23, 2014, Ababy cancelled the remainder of the order. In total, Three Peas sent $307, 260 in merchandise and Ababy paid $307, 710 through its PayPal account. Ababy initiated a “chargeback” on its credit card through PayPal which caused Three Peas' PayPal account to reflect a negative balance of over $70, 000.

         Three Peas filed this action in the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Lafayette Parish, and it was removed to this Court by Ababy on August 27, 2015. R. 1. Three Peas asserts claims against Ababy for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, damages, and petition on open account.

         On December 19, 2014, cancelled all purchase orders for goods it had with Ababy. Ababy contends it intended to re-sell the goods it ordered and received from Three Peas on Ababy further contends it sustained a total of $765, 576 in lost revenue and $393, 120 in lost profits as a result of the cancellation.

         II. Summary Judgment Standard

         A grant of summary judgment is appropriate where “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 dispute is said to be “genuine” only where a “reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Dizer v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 2012 WL 626201, *6 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2012) (citing Fordoche, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc., 463 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2006)). “Rule 56[ (a) ] mandates the entry of summary judgment ... against a party who 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.” Webber v. Christus Schumpert Health Sys., 2011 WL 3880398, *5 (W.D. La. Sept. 2, 2011) (quoting Patrick v. Ridge, 394 F.3d 311, 315 (5th Cir. 2004)).

         In ruling upon a motion for summary judgment, the district court shall draw all inferences in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at *3 n. 1 (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). However, the court will not, in the absence of proof, “assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary facts.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). “The non-movant cannot preclude summary judgment by raising 'some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of the evidence.”' Cormier v. W&T Offshore, Inc., 2013 WL 1567406, *7 (W.D. La. Apr. 12, 2013) (citing Little, 37 F.3d at 1075).

         III. ...

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.