Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06726/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06726-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FUJIKURA AMERICA INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUNOAK INTERNATIONAL INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-06726 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. After

considering the plaintiff’s papers and evidence, the Court concludes that oral argument is

unnecessary and GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

The parties entered into a promissory note on or about August 16, 2002. Under the

terms of the note, defendant promised to pay plaintiff $84,237.39 for previously received

shipments of golf club shafts. Defendant made several payments totaling $4,841.42, but no

other payments were made. Accordingly, $79,395.97 remains unpaid. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed this breach of contract action on October 30, 2006. Following 

unsuccessful mediation efforts, the Court set a November 5, 2007 trial date. Plaintiff has

moved for an early summary judgment ruling. Defendant has failed to file an opposition or

otherwise respond to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. 

Case 3:06-cv-06726-CRB Document 20 Filed 10/01/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

A principal purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to isolate and dispose of

factually unsupported claims. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). A

party moving for summary judgment that does not have the ultimate burden of persuasion at

trial (usually the defendant) has the initial burden of producing evidence negating an

essential element of the non-moving party’s claims or showing that the non-moving party

does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of

persuasion at trial. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th

Cir. 2000). Where the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof

at trial (usually the plaintiff), it has the initial burden of producing evidence which would

entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. C.A.R. Transp.

Brokerage Co., Inc. v. Darden, 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000).

If the moving party does not satisfy its initial burden, the non-moving party has no

obligation to produce anything and summary judgment must be denied. If, on the other hand,

the moving party has satisfied its initial burden of production, then the non-moving party

may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s evidence, but instead

must produce admissible evidence that shows there is a genuine issue of material fact for

trial. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 210 F.3d at 1102. A genuine issue of fact is one that

could reasonably be resolved in favor of either party. A dispute is “material” only if it could

affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477

U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). 

DISCUSSION

As the party bearing the burden of proof on its breach of contract claim at trial, 

plaintiff has an initial summary judgment burden of producing evidence that, if

uncontroverted, would entitle it to a directed verdict at trial. For reasons stated in its

memorandum supporting summary judgment, plaintiff has met this burden. Thus, the burden

shifts to the defendant to produce evidence demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact for

trial. Defendant has failed to respond to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and has

Case 3:06-cv-06726-CRB Document 20 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

therefore failed to meet its burden. Accordingly, the Court will GRANT plaintiff’s motion

for summary judgment in the amount of $79,395.97. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it is

entitled to an award of attorney fees or pre-judgment interest. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06726-CRB Document 20 Filed 10/01/07 Page 3 of 3