Maleszewski did not have either the real, apparent, or inherent authority to enter into an agreement on behalf of Amtec with Micro Man, then any facsimile or writing sent or signed by her cannot represent the agreement with Amtec.
The Court finds that some of those facts are material ones which prevent the entry of summary judgment as a matter of law.įirst, as pointed out by Plaintiff, the Defendants would have it both ways. Not only are those facts disputed, but some of the witnesses for each party, respectively, have provided, at the very least, inconsistent facts or characterizations of those facts. At the outset, to say this case is replete with disputed facts is an understatement.
DEFENDANTS' MOTIONĭefendants seek summary judgment on all four counts of the Second Amended Complaint and on Amtec's counterclaims. The Court finds Amtec's authority and reasoning persuasive and therefore finds that the counterclaims should not be dismissed as premature. Plaintiff argues that Amtec's counterclaims are premature because it has not yet terminated the distribution agreement. To the extent Plaintiff seeks a resolution of the merits on Defendants' affirmative defenses, the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact exist that prohibit such resolution.Īs to Defendant Amtec's counterclaims, the first counterclaim seeks a declaration that Amtec has the right to terminate Micro Man as a distributor in the non-exclusive territory (the territory other than the eighteen counties listed in the written agreements), and the second counterclaim seeks a declaration that Amtec can treat Micro Man's distribution of beer in the non-exclusive territory as a breach and therefore terminate Micro Man's distribution rights statewide. Plaintiff focuses more on the absence of pleaded facts in the affirmative defenses rather than a ruling on the merits, however. 2010), cited by Plaintiff, this case does not require the identification of any nonparties to which comparative negligence applies, nor does this case involve the duty to warn. With respect to whether summary judgment should be granted as to any of the affirmative defenses, the Court finds first, that the bare-boned allegations are sufficient to place Plaintiff on notice of the grounds on which Defendants will assert the affirmative defenses. Plaintiff claims its damages are measured using the increased sales margin available to a manufacturer such as Amtec for selling directly to a retailer without having to sell first to a distributor, since Amtec owns an interest in European and therefore European is not technically a distributor for purposes of the beer distribution system. Plaintiff alleges first, that Amtec's appointment of European as a distributor terminated Micro Man's prior distribution rights without notice or just cause in contravention of section 563.022(6)-(9), Florida Statutes, and second, that Amtec's interest in the license, assets, and business of European violates the three-tiered beer distribution system prohibited by section 563.022(14)(a)(3). Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on Defendants' affirmative defenses to the Second Amended Complaint and on Defendant Amtec's counterclaims. The facts must be viewed, and all reasonable inferences drawn, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Summary judgment is proper only when "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. After careful consideration of the submissions of the parties and the entire record, the Court concludes that both motions should be denied. 62 & 63), and Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition. 74), the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Statement of Undisputed Facts (Dkts. 60 & 61), Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition (Dkt. Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of Undisputed Facts, and various attachments (Dkts.
0 kommentar(er)
