Shaoxing Chenyee Textile Co. Ltd. v. Louise Paris Ltd.

Background

Shaoxing Chenyee Textile Co. Ltd. manufactures textiles. Louise Paris Ltd. ordered almost two million dollars’ worth of goods, accepted delivery, received the invoices, and did not dispute the amounts stated in them. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to pay for the goods and asserted seven causes of action, including breach of contract, account stated, and unjust enrichment.

After discovery ended, the plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on its breach-of-contract and account-stated claims and, alternatively, on its unjust-enrichment claim. The plaintiff supported the motion with purchase orders, invoices, the defendant’s responses to requests for admission, a deposition transcript, and a statement of undisputed facts. The defendant, through counsel, stated that it would not oppose the motion concerning the claims covered by it while reserving any rights relating to claims outside the motion.

Court’s analysis

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court may not grant an unopposed motion automatically; it must still review the evidence and determine whether the legal theory is valid.

Because the defendant knowingly chose not to oppose the motion, the court treated the defendant as having abandoned possible defenses to the claims covered by the motion. Under the court’s local rule, the plaintiff’s factual statements were also deemed admitted because the defendant did not controvert them. The court reviewed the supporting record and concluded that the relevant facts were supported by evidence or by the defendant’s own admissions.

For breach of contract, the record showed that the parties entered contracts for the sale of goods, the plaintiff performed by delivering the ordered products, and the defendant failed to pay 29 invoices totaling $1,904,479.38. For account stated—a claim seeking payment based on invoices that were sent and not disputed—the plaintiff showed that it sent invoices, the defendant did not object to them, and a balance of $1,904,479.38 remained unpaid. The court noted that account stated was an alternative theory for recovering the same damages and did not support double recovery.

Prejudgment interest and disposition

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest on the unpaid amounts from the dates the goods were delivered. It selected the interest rate under 26 U.S.C. § 6621(a)(2), which is based on the federal short-term rate plus three percentage points. The plaintiff was directed to submit a proposed judgment and an interest calculation.

The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on Count I, breach of contract, and Count III, account stated. It denied without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on Count IV, unjust enrichment, because summary judgment on the other two claims made it unnecessary to reach that alternative claim. The parties were directed to state their positions about how the remaining claims should be litigated.