United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER GRANTING GERBER PLUMBING FIXTURES, LLC’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OTIS
D. RIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff
Gerber Plumbing Fixtures, LLC (“Gerber”) moved
for summary judgment on various affirmative defenses asserted
by Defendants Amerifreight, Inc. dba Logistics Team
(“Logistics Team”), 19201 Reyes, LLC
(“Reyes”), Cathay Logistics, LLC
(“Cathay”), and Sinofreight, LLC dba SB Freight
(“Sinofreight”) in the consolidated case of
Gerber Plumbing Fixtures, LLC v. Amerifreight, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04146-ODW (GJS). For the reasons
discussed below, the Court GRANTS Gerber’s Motion.
(See Mot. for Summ. J., Gerber Plumbing
Fixtures, LLC v. Amerifreight, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-04146-ODW (GJS), ECF No. 77).[1]
II.
BACKGROUND
Gerber,
an Illinois company, manufactures and distributes residential
and commercial plumbing products. (Gerber’s Statement
of Undisputed Material Facts (“SUF”) 1, 6, ECF
No. 78.) Logistics Team, a California company, provides
warehousing and logistics services. (See SUF 3, 9.)
In January 2012, Gerber and Logistics Team entered into a
five-year contract whereby Logistics Team would provide
warehouse storage and management for Gerber’s
inventory. (SUF 9-13.) From 2012 until June 2015, Logistics
Team arranged for Gerber’s products to be stored at a
facility operated by Defendant 19201 Reyes, LLC
(“Reyes”). (SUF 14.)
Separately,
Gerber contracted with Cathay and Sinofreight for trucking
and logistics services for its containers arriving by
overseas carrier in both California and Illinois. (SUF 16.)
On March 23, 2015, Cathay and Sinofreight filed a Complaint
in the Los Angeles Superior Court against Gerber, contending
that Gerber owes them in excess of $1 million on an open book
account for shipping services. (SUF 19.)[2]
On
March 30, 2015, Logistics Team sent an e-mail to Gerber
stating its belief that Gerber had “engaged in bad
faith dealings, ” and thus intended to move
Gerber’s products out of the Reyes facility by June 30,
2015, unless Gerber moved its products out before then. (SUF
21.)[3]
The parties then exchanged a series of e-mails and phone
calls regarding their contract for services and various
unpaid debts. (SUF 21-23.) Gerber eventually informed
Logistics Team that it would remove its inventory from the
Reyes facility between May 31, 2015, and June 6, 2015.
(Id.)
On June
1, 2015, a Gerber representative arrived at the Reyes
facility to meet with a Logistics Team representative to
coordinate the move-out. (SUF 28.) However, the Logistics
Team representative informed the Gerber representative that
it no longer had access to the facility, and that it had
turned the keys over to Reyes. (SUF 29, 32.)[4]
On June
2, 2015, Gerber filed a Complaint against Logistics Team as
well as an Application for a Temporary Restraining Order.
(ECF Nos. 1, 3.) Gerber, claiming that Logistics Team was
holding millions of dollars’ worth of inventory
hostage, sought an immediate injunction against Logistics
Team for access to the Reyes facility. (ECF No. 3.) On June
11, 2015, Gerber filed a First Amended Complaint adding Reyes
as a defendant to the case. (ECF No. 30.) Gerber also filed a
second Application for Temporary Restraining Order, which
seeks the same relief against Reyes. (ECF No. 33.)
The
Court denied the TRO as to Logistics Team, but granted the
TRO as to Reyes. (ECF No. 43.) The Court ordered Reyes to
give Gerber access to its facility on a 24-hour basis for a
minimum of five calendar days, and access during regular
business hours for a minimum of ten calendar days, so that
Gerber could remove its remaining inventory. (Id.)
On July 1, 2015, the parties submitted a joint report to the
Court. (ECF No. 50.) The parties represented to the Court
that it would complete the move-out within the next seven
business days. (Id.) None of the parties voiced any
objection to the move-out process.
On
December 18, 2015, Gerber filed a Second Amended Complaint
(“SAC”), in which Gerber asserts three causes of
action: (1) breach of contract (against Logistics Team); (2)
conversion (against Reyes); and (3) conspiracy to commit
conversion (against Logistics Team, Reyes, Cathay, and
Sinofreight). (ECF No. 68.)
That
same day, Reyes answered Gerber’s SAC. (ECF No. 70.) On
December 31, 2015, Logistics Team, Cathay, and Sinofreight
answered the SAC. (ECF No. 74.) On April 11, 2016, Gerber
moved for summary judgment on various affirmative defenses
asserted by each Defendant. (ECF No. 77.) All Defendants
timely opposed, and Gerber timely replied. (ECF Nos. 84-95.)
That Motion is now before the Court for consideration.
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
The
court must grant summary judgment to a moving party if it
“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). The movant bears
the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). If the moving party meets this
burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and
identify specific facts through admissible evidence that show
a genuine dispute for trial. Id.; Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c).
A
disputed fact is “material” where the resolution
of that fact might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1968). Conclusory or speculative testimony in
affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine
issues of fact and defeat summary judgment.
Thornhill's Publ’g Co. v. GTE Corp., 594
F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979). Moreover, there must be more
than a mere scintilla of contradictory evidence. Addisu
v. Fred Meyer, 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000).
Where the moving and nonmoving parties’ versions of
events differ, courts are required to view the facts and draw
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378
(2007). A court may not weigh conflicting evidence or make
credibility determinations. Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless,
Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007).
IV.
DISCUSSION
A.
Logistics Team, ...