United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
BHP INC., doing business as Global Power Components, Plaintiff,
TITAN ENERGY SYSTEMS INC., doing business as Pioneer Critical Power, Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
E. JONES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2017, Pioneer Critical Power entered into a contract to
purchase two generator enclosures from Global Power
Components. GPC delivered the enclosures in December 2017,
but Pioneer paid only 50% of the total purchase price. In
March 2018, GPC filed suit in federal court, alleging that
Pioneer's failure to pay the balance due constituted a
material breach of the enclosure contract.
moved for summary judgment on liability. Pioneer opposes the
motion, arguing that a genuine issue of fact exists as to
whether GPC substantially performed its obligations under the
contract. The Court disagrees. The undisputed facts
demonstrate that GPC is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law on its breach-of-contract claim. GPC's motion will
therefore be granted.
Inc., doing business as Global Power Components, is a
Wisconsin corporation that designs, fabricates, and assembles
custom products used for power generation, including fuel
tanks, tank enclosures, trailers, and containers.
See Amended Complaint ¶ 1, ECF No. 2; see
also Plaintiffs Proposed Statement of Material Facts
¶ 1, ECF No. 24. Titan Energy Systems Inc., doing
business as Pioneer Critical Power, is a Minnesota
corporation that sells advanced equipment and service
solutions for onsite emergency power. Am. Compl. ¶ 2;
Pl.'s Facts ¶ 2.
about July 25, 2017, GPC provided a quote to Pioneer to sell
two generator enclosures for use at the Camp Ripley project
in Minnesota. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 3 (citing Exhibit A to
Declaration of Marty Ring, ECF No. 25-1). Two days later,
Pioneer accepted the quote by issuing a purchase order to
GPC. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 8 (citing Exhibit C to Ring
Decl., ECF No. 25-3. The purchase price for the two
enclosures was $266, 900.00. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 9. GPC
invoiced Pioneer for the two enclosures on November 30, 2017,
indicating that payment was due in 20 days. Pl.'s Facts
¶ 11 (citing Exhibit D to Ring Decl., ECF No. 25-4;
Exhibit E to Ring Decl., ECF No. 25-5). The enclosures were
shipped shortly thereafter. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 12. On
January 12, 2018, Pioneer paid GPC 50% of the purchase price.
Pl.'s Facts ¶ 13. Pioneer has not paid GPC the
remaining 50%. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 14.
March 21, 2018, GPC filed this diversity action against
Pioneer. See Complaint, ECF No. 1. The matter was
randomly assigned to this Court, and all parties consented to
magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Consent to
Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge, ECF Nos. 8, 11 (citing 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73(b)). GPC claims that
Pioneer breached the enclosure contract by failing to pay the
remaining 50% of the purchase price, see Am. Compl.
¶¶ 14-16, and that, according to the terms and
conditions of the contract, GPC is entitled to interest
(1.25% per month) and attorney fees, see Am. Compl.
¶¶ 12-13, ; Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 5-7,
September 21, 2018, GPC filed a motion for summary judgment
on liability. See Plaintiff's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, ECF No. 22. That Motion is now fully
briefed and ready for disposition. See
Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of
Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No.
23; Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 31;
Plaintiff's Reply Brief, ECF No. 32.
Summary Judgment Standard
court shall grant summary judgment if 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). “Material facts” are those
that, under the applicable substantive law, “might
affect the outcome of the suit.” See Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute
over a material fact is “genuine” “if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.
moving party “is ‘entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law'” when “the nonmoving party has
failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element
of [its] case with respect to which [it] has the burden of
proof.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986). Still,
a party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for its motion, and identifying those portions of the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue
of material fact.
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists,
the court must review the record, construing all facts in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all
reasonable inferences in that party's favor. See Heft
v. Moore, 351 F.3d 278, 282 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing
Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255). “However,
[the court's] favor toward the nonmoving party does not
extend to drawing inferences that are supported by only
speculation or conjecture.” Fitzgerald v.
Santoro, 707 F.3d 725, 730 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting
Harper v. C.R. Eng., Inc., 687 F.3d 297, 306 (7th
Cir. 2012)). That is, “to survive summary judgment, the
non-moving party must establish some genuine issue for ...