United States District Court, D. Oregon
For plaintiff: Craig McMillin, Mills & McMillin PC, Salem, Oregon.
Stellar Inc., d.b.a. Priebe Electronics, defendant, Pro se, Woodinville, Washington.
Priebe Electronics, defendant, Pro se, Woodinville, Washington.
OPINION AND ORDER
Ann Aiken, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Lytech Solutions, Inc. moves for summary judgment against defendant Stellar Inc., d.b.a. Priebe Electronics pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. R. 56. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part, and this case is dismissed.
Plaintiff is an Oregon corporation in the business of preparing and providing electronic components for commercial sale. On April 2, 2007, plaintiff entered into a written purchase agreement (" Contract") with defendant, a Washington corporation, that dictated the general terms of the parties' working relationship. The Contract had an initial term of two years but " automatically renew[ed] for [successive] additional periods of one (1) year." Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 1, at 3. Between November 24, 2009, and November 4, 2013, defendant purchased $136, 090.70 worth of electronic components from plaintiff. Plaintiff delivered these goods to defendant along with corresponding invoices pursuant to the terms of the Contract. Defendant made nominal payments, in April 2012 and October 2013, totaling $2772.26.
On February 19, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint in Multnomah County Circuit Court, alleging three claims aimed at recovering the amount owed - i.e. $133, 318.44, plus nine percent interest - for the goods furnished to and accepted by defendant. On April 25, 2014, defendant removed plaintiff's claims to this Court. On May 22, 2014, defendant answered plaintiff's complaint admitting to: the existence of the Contract, " purchas[ing] goods from plaintiff [that were] delivered to defendant, " receiving " invoice[s] [from plaintiff] in the amount of $133, 318.44 for the goods delivered, " and " not pa[ying] plaintiff." Answer ¶ ¶ 3-4, 7, 11, 13.
On July 21, 2014, the Court granted defendant's attorney leave to withdraw in light of the fact that " [d]efendant has incurred an unanticipated financial setback [and will be] filing for bankruptcy protection in the near future." Potter Decl. ¶ 2. On September 16, 2014, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. On December 5, 2014, a telephone status conference was held with the Court. As of the date of this decision, defendant has not filed an opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion or a bankruptcy petition.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, if any, show " that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the [moving party] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Substantive law on an issue determines the materiality of a fact. T. W. Elec. Servs., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Whether the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party determines the authenticity of a dispute. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the moving party shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify facts which show a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.
Special rules of construction apply when evaluating a summary judgment motion: (1) all reasonable doubts as to the existence of genuine issues of material fact should be resolved against the moving party; and (2) all inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the ...