Case Title: Albu Trading, Inc. v. Allen Family Foods, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 487, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-04-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ALBU TRADING, INC.,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellant,
v.
ALLEN FAMILY FOODS, INC.,
Defendant Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 487, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. No. 00C-05-131
§
§
Submitted: April 21, 2003
  Decided:   April 29, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 29th day of April 2003, upon consideration of the briefs of the
parties and the record below, limited to appellant’s appeal from the Superior
Court’s August 30, 2001 order granting summary judgment to appellee, it
appears to the Court that:
(1)
The plaintiff-appellant, Albu Trading, Inc. (“Albu”), filed an
appeal from the Superior Court’s August 30, 2001 order granting summary
1Albu also appealed from the Superior Court’s September 24, 2001 order denying
Albu’s motion to alter or amend judgment.
2Following the filing of its notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s August 30 and
September 24, 2001 orders, Albu filed a motion to stay the appeal and remand the matter to
the Superior Court for consideration of a motion to reopen on the ground of newly-
discovered evidence under Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b) (2).  On February 20, 2002, this
Court granted Albu’s motion and remanded the matter to the Superior Court.  Following
briefing by the parties, the Superior Court denied Albu’s motion to reopen.  On November
22, 2002, following briefing and oral argument, this Court affirmed the Superior Court’s
judgment.  Albu Trading, Inc. v. Allen Family Foods, Inc., Del. Supr., No. 487, 2001, Walsh,
J. (Nov. 22, 2002).  On December 9, 2002, Albu moved to reargue this Court’s decision on
the ground that the Court had not yet addressed the issues raised in Albu’s original appeal.
By Order dated January 24, 2003, this Court granted the motion for reargument, limiting its
review solely to the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment. 
-2-
judgment to defendant-appellee, Allen Family Foods, Inc. (“Allen”).1  We find
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.2  
(2)
This matter began as a breach of contract action by Albu against
Allen.  Albu purchased a large quantity of frozen chicken from Allen.  After
delivery, Albu exported the chicken to Romania where it tested positive for
salmonella and was destroyed.  Albu sought to recover the purchase price of the
chicken alleging that it was contaminated when delivered by Allen. 
(3)
In the instant appeal, Albu claims that the Superior Court erred in
granting Allen’s motion for summary judgment because: a) there are material
facts at issue, preventing the entry of summary judgment; and b) the risk of loss
was improperly shifted to Albu following delivery of the chicken by Allen.
3Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56, 59 (Del. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 912 (1992).
4Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1979).
5Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355, 1364 (Del. 1995).
6Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d at 59 (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
323 (1986)).
-3-
(4)
This Court reviews the Superior Court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo to determine whether, viewing the facts in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party, the moving party has demonstrated that
there are no material facts in dispute and that it is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.3  On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party bears the
initial burden of showing that there are no material facts in dispute.4  Once that
burden is satisfied, through affidavits or otherwise, the burden shifts to the non-
moving party to show the existence of disputed material facts.5  The moving
party is entitled to summary judgment if the non-moving party fails to make a
sufficient showing on an essential element of its case with respect to which it
will bear the burden of proof at trial.6
(5)
Allen, as the moving party, presented a number of documents in
support of its motion for summary judgment, including three “veterinary
certificates” dated May 18, 1998, issued by the United States Department of
Agriculture (“USDA”).  Each of the certificates confirmed that the chicken was
7DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6, §2-509(2) (b).  
-4-
delivered to Albu on May 14, 1998, free of salmonella contamination and
frozen at a temperature that would prevent the future growth of salmonella.
Allen also presented two affidavits.  The first, from Allen’s corporate director
of quality control, stated that salmonella is incapable of growth at temperatures
below 44 degrees Fahrenheit.  The second, from the plant manager of United
States Cold Storage, Inc. (“USCS”), stated that Allen delivered the chicken to
USCS between February 4 and 13, 1998, that it was frozen upon delivery, that
the temperature was maintained at zero degrees thereafter, and that a USDA
inspector inspected the chicken and signed the veterinary certificates on May
14, 1998, the day Albu took possession of the chicken.  
(6)
On the basis of these documents, the Superior Court correctly
found that Allen had satisfied its initial burden of showing that no material facts
were in dispute.  The Superior Court also correctly observed that, under the
Uniform Commercial Code, it was Albu’s burden to demonstrate at trial that the
chicken was contaminated with salmonella at the time it took possession on
May 14, 1998.7
(7)
In response to the documents presented by Allen, Albu offered a
letter from the USDA, which it received pursuant to a Freedom of Information
8The Superior Court considered the affidavit even though it was untimely and there
was no evidence that Albu’s president had expertise in this area.
-5-
Act request.  The letter suggested that the salmonella testing took place for the
first time on May 18, and not May 14, 1998.  The Superior Court correctly
found that, while the letter reflected a discrepancy insofar as the test date was
concerned, it failed to create an issue of material fact concerning whether the
chicken was contaminated with salmonella at the time Albu took possession of
it.  In a further attempt to create an issue of material fact, Albu presented an
affidavit from the president of the company asserting that the USDA test
methodology was faulty because no laboratory testing was done.8  Again, the
Superior Court correctly found no issue of material fact concerning whether the
chicken was contaminated at the time Albu took possession of it.  
(8)
Concluding that there was no evidence in the record supporting
Albu’s claim that the chicken was contaminated at the time it took possession
and that, therefore, Albu had failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential
element of its case with respect to which it would bear the burden of proof at
trial, the Superior Court granted Allen’s motion for summary judgment.  Upon
9Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d at 60-61.
-6-
an independent review of the record, we reach the same conclusion and affirm
the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment.9
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 18, the time
within which a motion for reargument may be filed in this matter is shortened
to seven days from the date of this Order.
BY THE COURT:
   s/Joseph T. Walsh
       Justice