Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Service Pump & Supply, Co., Inc. v. Sun Industries, LLC

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division

May 20, 2019

SERVICE PUMP & SUPPLY CO., INC, Plaintiff,
v.
SUN INDUSTRIES, LLC and TOBY BERTHELOT, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          ROBERT C. CHAMBERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pending before the Court are the Motions for Summary Judgment submitted by Defendants Sun Industries, LLC (“Sun”) and Toby Berthelot, and Plaintiff Service Pump & Supply Co., Inc.[1]See ECF Nos. 29, 44, 47. The motions are focused on Plaintiff's allegation that Defendants breached a contract between the parties by refusing to pay it the full contract price. See Compl., ECF No. 1; Am. Compl., ECF No. 19.

         The dispute in this case is relatively straightforward. Both parties argue that they are entitled to summary judgment based upon their own interpretation of a material term in a rental contract for generators: price. See Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 29, at 2; Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 47, at 1-2. To be more specific, Defendants argue that the contract requires them to pay Plaintiff based on how long they actually used the generators, whereas Plaintiff argues that the contract requires Defendants to pay Plaintiff for at least one full month's use of the generators, regardless of whether Defendants used the generators for less time. See id.

         The parties have fully briefed the issues and the motions are now ripe for adjudication. As explained below, the Court GRANTS, IN PART, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

         I. Background

         The following facts are undisputed, as the core dispute in this case is what conclusion should result from the facts. In September of 2017, Defendant Sun was working on a flood relief project in Collier County, Florida, and entered into a rental contract with Plaintiff for generators. See Mem. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 48, at 1; ECF No. 32-3; ECF No. 32-5. The parties negotiated the terms of the contract exclusively through e-mail communications on September 13, 2017. See Mem. in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 30, at 1. The following is the relevant portion of the negotiations after Jared Stratton, Plaintiff's employee, sent an email to Blake Thibodeaux, Defendant Sun's division manager, with a spreadsheet setting forth the daily rental fee for each of the generators Defendant Sun sought to lease:

Mr. Thibodeaux (12:25 pm): We will take all of these. Can you send a monthly rate for each unit and the exact locations of each unit so we schedule pick up[?]
Mr. Stratton (12:29 pm): Blake, how do you want to handle the deposit?
Mr. Thibodeaux (12:33 pm): Send me the requoted sheet with monthly rates and I can issue the PO (purchase order).
Mr. Stratton (1:16 pm): Can we do $10, 000.00 today on a credit card and then ACH[2] $129, 000.00 by the end of the week?[3]
Mr. Thibodeaux (1:39 pm): Jared, we can provide a card for deposit. Send me payment amount and I will get Julie to provide you with a card.

ECF No. 32-3, at 1-5.

         Subsequently, Mr. Stratton and Defendant Berthelot engaged in the following negotiations:

Mr. Stratton (2:17 pm): Toby, we normally do 50% up front but are willing to make concessions. We can do $35, 000.00 (25%) on the card and send weekly ...

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.