Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. v. Heliene, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-06392
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Yingli v. Heliene, Judge Furman granted Heliene summary judgment on three claims but reserved contract rulings pending oral argument.
Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. and Heliene, Inc.; Heliene prevailed on three of Yingli’s claims, while the court reserved final rulings on the contract-related claims.
What happened
Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. v. Heliene, Inc. involved competing claims that the parties breached contracts concerning several purchase orders. Yingli also sought payment of money it said Heliene received improperly, unjust-enrichment damages, damages for violating the duty of good faith, additional contract damages, and attorney’s fees.
Both sides asked for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide claims without a trial when the material facts are not genuinely disputed. The opinion granted Heliene’s motion on Yingli’s claims for money had and received, unjust enrichment, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. It did not finally decide the contract claims involving purchase orders 006, 007, 008, and 009.
Judge Jesse M. Furman said the court was inclined to grant Yingli summary judgment on its claim involving purchase order 008 and related attorney’s fees, and to deny summary judgment on the claims involving purchase orders 006, 007, and 009 and related damages and fees. The court reserved judgment on those matters pending oral argument.
The detailed version
- Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. v. Heliene, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-06392
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 23, 2019
Background
Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. and Heliene, Inc. had competing breach-of-contract claims concerning purchase orders identified as PO 006, PO 007, PO 008, and PO 009. Yingli also asserted claims for money had and received, unjust enrichment, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, liquidated damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.
The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the legal and factual record permits judgment on a claim as a matter of law.
Rulings
The court granted Heliene’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Yingli’s claims for money had and received, unjust enrichment, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
As to the breach-of-contract claims, the court said it was inclined to grant Yingli summary judgment on its claim concerning PO 008, based on the court’s preliminary view that Yingli’s written cancellation of that purchase order was valid. The court also said it was inclined to grant Yingli summary judgment on its related claim for attorney’s fees.
The court said it was inclined to deny summary judgment on the parties’ claims concerning PO 006, PO 007, and PO 009, including related claims for liquidated damages and attorney’s fees. These contract-related rulings were not final in the opinion: the court reserved judgment on them pending oral argument at a conference scheduled for January 9, 2020.
Other matters
The court directed the parties to be prepared to address whether their motion papers should remain under seal or in redacted form, given the presumption favoring public access to judicial materials. If a trial became necessary, the parties were also directed to discuss whether they were open to alternative dispute resolution.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.