United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
EDWARD B. MENDY and CHEF PROPERTIES, LLC
v.
GRAHAM PACKARD, LLC, ICE ICE LIVING, LLC, YOGI GRAHAM, AND DANIEL PACKARD
SECTION:
“H”
ORDER AND REASONS
JANE
TRICHE MILAZZO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before
the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on
Plaintiffs' Remaining Claims (Doc. 89). For the following
reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Defendants
are Graham Packard, LLC (“Graham Packard”), Ice
Ice Living, LLC (“Ice Ice”), and their owners,
Yogi Graham (“Graham”) and Daniel Packard
(“Packard”) (collectively
“Defendants”). This matter arises out of an
agreement to purchase property in which Plaintiffs Chef
Properties, LLC and its owner Edward B. Mendy
(“Mendy”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”)
executed a purchase agreement (“the Agreement”)
to buy two properties from Defendants Graham Packard and Ice
Ice. Under the Agreement, Plaintiffs had two days from
execution to deliver a $1, 000 deposit into an escrow
account, and thirty days from execution to conduct any
desired due diligence, obtain financing, and submit an
additional $9, 000 deposit.
Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint (Doc. 19), Second Amended Complaint (Doc.
41), Third Supplemental Amended Complaint (Doc. 53), and
Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 66) (collectively
“Amended Complaint”) set forth the following
facts. On April 2, 2016, when Mendy met with Packard to
execute the Agreement, the two discussed and agreed to change
certain terms, namely, deferring the deadline for the
inspection and second deposit to sixty days. Packard
suggested incorporating these changes into an addendum rather
than marking up the Agreement, and Mendy alleges that he
executed the Agreement on the understanding that an addendum
would follow shortly thereafter.
For two
weeks following that meeting, Packard repeatedly assured
Mendy that he was drafting the addendum. Subsequently,
however, Packard notified Mendy that Graham Packard had
received interest from other prospective buyers and wanted
Mendy to “show proof of ability to close the sale
before [Defendants] would execute the addendum.” Mendy
supplied the requested information, but Defendants failed to
send any draft addendum, and instead, Packard notified Mendy
that Defendants would likely go with another offer. On April
25, 2016, Mendy drafted an addendum and sent it to Packard
but received no response. Growing concerned, Mendy then
attempted to comply with the terms of the Agreement and set
up an appointment for inspection. Defendants failed to
respond to Mendy's requests to make the properties
available for inspection. Mendy did not hear from Packard
until May 3, 2016-one day after the thirty day deadline-when
Packard informed Mendy that Defendants would not sign the
addendum and considered the contract void because Mendy had
failed to obtain an inspection and make the second deposit of
$9, 000 by the thirty day deadline as set out in the
Agreement.
Plaintiffs
subsequently filed suit alleging sixteen claims. This Court
has dismissed all of Plaintiffs' claims, save their
claims for libel, slander, and fraud.[1] In doing so, the Court held
that Plaintiffs had not put forth any evidence that
Defendants interfered with their performance of the
Agreement, and their breach was therefore not justified.
Defendants
now move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' remaining
claims. Plaintiffs have failed to respond to Defendants'
Motion. The Court may not, however, simply grant the instant
Motion as unopposed. The Fifth Circuit approaches the
automatic grant of dispositive motions with considerable
aversion.[2] Instead, the proper inquiry to an
unopposed motion for summary judgment is to determine whether
the facts advanced in the motion and supported by appropriate
evidence make out a prima facie case that the movant is
entitled to judgment.[3]
LEGAL
STANDARD
Summary
judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law.”[4] A genuine issue
of fact exists only “if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.”[5]
In
determining whether the movant is entitled to summary
judgment, the Court views facts in the light most favorable
to the non-movant and draws all reasonable inferences in his
favor.[6] “If the moving party meets the
initial burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of
material fact, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to
produce evidence or designate specific facts showing the
existence of a genuine issue for trial.”[7] Summary judgment
is appropriate if the non-movant “fails to make a
showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
essential to that party's case.”[8] “In
response to a properly supported motion for summary judgment,
the non-movant must identify specific evidence in the record
and articulate the manner in which that evidence supports
that party's claim, and such evidence must be sufficient
to sustain a finding in favor of the non-movant on all issues
as to which the non-movant would bear the burden of proof at
trial.”[9] “We do not . . . in the absence of
any proof, assume that the nonmoving party could or would
prove the necessary facts.”[10] Additionally,
“[t]he mere argued existence of a factual dispute will
not defeat an otherwise properly supported
motion.”[11]
LAW
AND ANALYSIS
Defendants
move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' remaining claims
of fraud and defamation. This Court ...