Entsorgafin S.p.A v. Entsorga West Virginia, LLC

Background

Entsorgafin S.P.A. moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on its breach-of-contract claim against Entsorga West Virginia, LLC. The motion was unopposed, but the court still examined whether Entsorgafin established that no genuine dispute of material fact existed.

The parties entered into a May 7, 2021 Settlement Agreement resolving an earlier dispute involving licensing, business services, and supply agreements. Under the Settlement Agreement and related promissory notes, Entsorga West Virginia agreed to pay Entsorgafin $1,001,400 in 24 monthly installments of $41,725. The agreement also provided for a $253,295.96 discounted amount to be collected if an event of default occurred. The agreements allowed Entsorgafin to accelerate the amounts due after an uncured default and provided for interest at a default rate of 1% per month, along with reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for collection.

Entsorga West Virginia made the first two payments, totaling $83,450, but stopped making the required payments beginning November 1, 2021. Entsorgafin sent multiple default notices and later accelerated the amounts due. Entsorga West Virginia did not cure the defaults. Its counsel had withdrawn, and it did not appoint successor counsel or respond to the summary-judgment motion.

Court’s Analysis

For a claim based on promissory notes, the court explained that a plaintiff generally establishes its initial entitlement to summary judgment by showing that the defendant executed the notes and failed to pay. The defendant must then identify a genuine factual dispute involving a valid defense.

The court found no dispute that Entsorga West Virginia executed the Settlement Agreement and notes, agreed to pay the settlement amount, and admitted that it validly issued and delivered the notes. The court also found no dispute about the notes’ terms, the payment failures beginning November 1, 2021, the resulting events of default, or Entsorgafin’s delivery of default notices. Entsorga West Virginia offered no valid defense, and none was apparent from the record.

The court calculated the claimed principal as $1,001,400 plus $253,295.96, less the $83,450 already paid, for a total of $1,171,245.96. It stated that interest could run at 1% per month from the relevant payment-due dates for some notes and from January 28, 2022, when Entsorgafin declared an event of default and demanded payment under the remaining notes. The court also stated that the agreements entitled Entsorgafin to seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Ruling

Judge Liman granted Entsorgafin’s motion for summary judgment as to liability. The court did not grant summary judgment as to damages because Entsorgafin had not submitted evidence concerning the amount of interest, attorneys’ fees, or costs. The court directed Entsorgafin to file a further motion for summary judgment on those damages, with a supporting statement of material facts and contemporaneous billing records, by April 27, 2023. Entsorga West Virginia was given two weeks to respond, and the court stated that it would treat any nonresponse as unopposed. The clerk was directed to close the original summary-judgment motion docket entry.