2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-28-2004 

# S o ok ho o v . B ec t on D ick

inson C o P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3216

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" S oo k hoo v . Be ct on Dickin s on C o " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 457. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/457* The Honorable J. Cliffor d Wallace, Senior Circuit J udge for the United States

Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Ci rcuit , si tti ng by des ignati on. NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-3216
RONNIE SOOKHOO; INDUSTRI AL LABORATORY RE SE AR CH LIM ITE D, a lim ited liability company of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago Appellants

v. BE CT ON DI CK IN SO N A ND CO M PA NY , a N ew Jersey co rpora tion; ENRI QUE GUDI NO; RAUL A. FABRE GA

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRI CT COURT

FOR DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (Dist. Court No. 01-cv- 03863) Distri ct Court J udge: Honorable Anne E. Thompson

Argued: June 18, 2004 Befo re : ALI TO, S MITH, AND WALLACE * , Circuit Judges
. (Opinion Fi led: J uly 28, 2004)1 Soo kho o also stated c laims in tort and prom issory estop pel. 2 LAU REN B . COHEN (argued) 175 Fairvi ew Avenue Paramus, New Jersey

07652 Counsel for

Appellant s AND REW W. SCHW ARTZ (argued) STEVE N R. ROWLAND Sil ls, Cumis, Epste in & Gross , P. S. One Riverfront

Plaza Newark, New Jersey 07102-5400 Counsel for

Appellee

OPINI ON OF THE COURT
PER CU RIA M : This is an ap peal o f a su mm ary judgm ent ord er. Th e relev ant fa cts are s et out in the D istrict Co urt’s op inion. W e find that the re exis ts a gen uine iss ue of mate rial fact, and we therefor e revers e the Dist rict Court’s s ummary judge ment order and remand for trial. In it s complaint , Sookhoo all eged that he had a contr act with Becton Dickins on and Company (“BD”) to be BD’s exclusive di stributor i n Trinida d. 1 Unfortunate ly for Sookhoo, he was unable to produce a writ ten copyof any cont

ract. In respons e to the complaint , BD submitte d a motion t o dismis s under FRCP 12(b)(6) , argui ng that any3

exi stin g ag re emen t wa s be twe en S ookhoo andone of BD’ s f or ei gn s ubs id iari es . BD reasoned that as Sookhoo, Industrial, and BD ’s foreign subsidiari es were all non-citi zens, the Dist rict Court did not

have diver sity j urisdi ction ove r the cont ract c laim. After reviewing t

his moti on, the Distri ct Court i ssued an orde r stating t hat previ ouslyit had “convert ed this motion i nto a moti on for summary judgment. ” The Distri ct Court t hen dism issed th e case for lac k of subje ct ma tter jurisdic tion, rulin g that S ook hoo failed to produc e evidenc e that there w as any agreem ent betw een him and B D an d furtherm ore finding t hat, if anyagreement exi sted, it was between Sookhoo and BD’s foreign
su bs id iar y. W e co nclu de th at an erro neo us p roc edu re w as u sed in d ecid ing the m otio n. F irst, a non-moving part

y must recei ve notic e at l east 10 day s before a motion to di smiss under 12( b)(6 ) is co nve rted into a m otio n fo r sum ma ry judg me nt. See Ro se v. B artle , 871 F.2d 331 , 335, 3 42 (3 d C ir. 1989 ); Hancock Industries v. Schaeffer , 811 F.2d 225, 229 (3d Cir. 1987) citi ng Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Waldman , 634 F.2d 127, 129 (3d Cir.1980) . Here, such noti ce was not provi ded. Indee d, becausethe part ies were not directe d to p rovid e sup porting affid avits, as F RC P 56 requ ires, but in stead w ere told to make informa l responses, it appea rs that Sook hoo w as misled into b elieving that BD ’s
mo tion wo uld not be c onv erted into a su mm ary jud gm ent m otio n. See App. 126; 146; App ellant’s Br. at 3. This prev ented So okhoo from g athering and presenting to the Cou rt the proper e vidence a nd argu ments he needed to defend against a m otion for sum mary4

judg men t. Second, BD’s motion r aised a merits issue, not an is sue of subj ect matter juri sdiction. Si mply put , byfinding t hat the re was no contr actualrelat ionshi p between the parti es, t he District Court

was determini ng the meri ts of the case. This was import ant, as the st andard for di smissi ng for a la ck of juri sdiction is differe nt from the standar d for gra ntin g su mm ary jud gm ent. See Nesbit v. Gears Unlimite d Inc. , 347 F.3d 72, 76-77 (3d Cir. 2003 ). In an y ev en t, we d o no t b as e t oday ’s de ci si on o n the ab ove gr oun ds be ca us e we hold that there w as a genu ine issue of m aterial fact left for trial and that BD was the refore not enti tled to summary j udgment. We exerci se plenar y r eview over a deci sion t o grant summary j udgment. “I n considering a moti on for summaryjudgment, a dist rict court may not make credibili ty determi nations or engage i n any weighi ng of the evi dence; i nstead, the non-moving party ’s evi dence is to be beli eved and alljustifiable inf erences are to be drawn in his favor.” Marino v. Indus . Crating Co. , 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004)(quot ation omi tted) . Furthermore, “[t]he burden is on the moving party to produce cred ible e vid enc e tha t wo uld entit le it to a dir ecte d ve rdic t if no t con trov erted at tria l.” Pen nbarr Corp. v. In sur anc e Co. of N. Am. , 976 F.2d 145, 149 -50 (3d C ir. 1992). Here, we find that Sookhoo’s c laim raises an issue of materi al fact . At bottom, the credibi lit y of Sookhoo’ s clai m that a cont ract e xist ed is an i ssue for t he factfi nder. Not only has BD failed t o show that no cont ract e xist ed, but

the rec ord contai ns evidence of2 While we agree that Sookhoo never a llege d in it s brie fs to the District Court that BD and its forei gn subsidi aries were a “singl e enti ty ,” there is no legal rule requiri ng such magic words. Sookhoo pl ainly argued that BD and its foreign subsi diari es were one co m pa ny a nd th is i s a n i ss ue fo r th e ju ry. 5 some form of dist

ribut orship a greement and pos sibl y a l ong-standing, e xclusi ve relat ion ship betw een the p artie s. See , e.g. , App. 94; 298- 309. Furthermore, the one docum ent in the record that suggests that the a greeme nt was b etween Sook hoo an d BD ’s for eign sub sidia ry is ins uff icien t for sum ma ry judg me nt. See Ap p. 225 -228 . No t only is the document vague and without f oundation, but the Dis tri ct Court e rroneousl y i gnored Sookhoo’s claim and evidence that BD’s for eign subsi diari es were so cont roll ed by BD as to m ak e th em th e s am e c om pa ny. 2 See App. 279-286; App. 298- 300; App. 418-419. For these reasons, we reverse t he summary j udgment order and remand for furt her proceedings.