[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-11920

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-03262-MHS

NEWELL RUBBERMAID INC., 

GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS INC., 

 Plaintiffs - Counter Defendants

 Appellees,

versus

FLEXFLO USA, INC., 

 Defendant - Counter Claimant

 Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(October 23, 2014)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-11920 Date Filed: 10/23/2014 Page: 1 of 3 
2

This is a breach-of-contract action. Graco Children’s Products, Inc. 

(“Graco”), under a “Distribution Agreement” with FlexFlo USA, Inc. (“FlexFlo”) 

effective January 1, 2007, sold Graco products to FlexFlo for resale by FlexFlo to 

customers in Venezuela. The Agreement’s term was one year, subject to renewal. 

The Agreement renewed annually for the one-year term beginning on January 1, 

2008, through January 1, 2011. In October 2011, Graco informed FlexFlo that the 

Agreement would expire effective December 31, 2011, and that it would not accept 

any of FlexFlo’s purchase orders after that date. When FlexFlo failed to pay Graco 

the balance due on purchases made through December 31, 2011—a sum totaling 

$356,464.91—Graco brought this lawsuit in the District Court to recover the 

balance due. 

FlexFlo, in response to Graco’s complaint, admitted the balance due but 

claimed in its answer and counterclaim that Graco (1) breached the Agreement by 

wrongfully terminating the Agreement and refusing to accept purchase orders 

through December 31, 2011; (2) agreed to defer filing suit for the balance due 

pending good-faith efforts to negotiate a settlement of the indebtedness; and (3) 

breached that agreement by failing to negotiate in good faith before filing this 

lawsuit. FlexFlo also claimed a setoff in the amount of the profits it would have 

made on the sale of Graco products had Graco not wrongfully terminated the 

Agreement. 

Case: 14-11920 Date Filed: 10/23/2014 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Following discovery, Graco moved the District Court for summary 

judgment. In an order entered on January 14, 2014, the court granted the motion—

rejecting the merits of FlexFlo’s defenses and counterclaim in the process—and 

gave Graco judgment for $356,464.91.1

 Doc. 86. FlexFlo appeals the judgment, 

arguing that summary judgment was precluded by material issues of fact as to 

whether Graco wrongfully terminated the Agreement and thereafter breached its 

agreement to defer collection proceedings pending the completion of good-faith 

settlement negotiations. 

We have carefully considered FlexFlo’s arguments that material issues of 

fact precluded summary judgment and conclude, for the reasons the District Court 

gave in its January 14, 2014, order, that the arguments are foreclosed by the record. 

AFFIRMED.

 

1 On March 31, 2014, the District Court also ordered FlexFlo to pay Graco $40,334.24 in 

prejudgment interest. Doc. 89. 

Case: 14-11920 Date Filed: 10/23/2014 Page: 3 of 3