NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0721n.06 F iled: Novem ber 20, 2008 No. 07-4239 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
AUB I N I NDUSTRI ES, I

NC., Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. J EFF SMI TH, WEL L I

NGTONI

NDUSTRI ES, I

NC., n/k/a WIHOL DI

NGS, I NC., STANDEX I NTERNATI ONAL

CORP., C OL SON CASTER CORP., C OL SON GROUP, I NC., and WEL L I NG TO N I

ND UST RIAL

GR OU P, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On Appea l from the United States District Court for the Southern Di str ic t of

Oh io

Be fore : BO GGS, Chief J udg e; and GI BB ONS and GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg es BO GGS, Chief J udg e: Plaintiff Aubin Industries, Inc. make s industrial wheels. Def endants have, at va

rious times, owned the Wellington c aster busine ss. From approximately

1998 to 2002, Welli ng ton purcha sed whe els from Aubin a nd incorporated them into casters, which Wellington then sold to Honda of A merica . The pa rties stopped doing busine ss in 2002 after Aubin discovere d that Wellington had duplicate d its wheel and wa s using suc h whee l in its caste rs. Aubin sued for , inter alia, misappr opriation of trade secr ets, dec eptive tra de pra ctices, unf air c ompetition, fraudulent misrepr esentation, neg lige nt misreprese ntation, brea ch of distributorship ag ree ment, brea ch of joint venture ,No. 07-4239

Au bin Ind us tr ie s, I nc . v . Sm ith , e t a l.

- 2 - an d ci v i l co n s p i ra cy . Af

t er b o thp ar t i es co n s en t edt o h i s j uri s d i ct i o n , a m agi s tra t e j u d ge g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt o n a ll c ounts fo r t he de fe nd ants . The mag istrate judg e’s we ll-rea soned opinion proper ly g rante d summary jud g me nt f

or the de fe nd ants be c a

us e Au bin ha s f a ile d to pr od

uc e any e vid e nc e of

a t le a st one ele ment of eve ry

of ca use of a ction. We theref

ore a ffirm the substanc e of the summary judgme nt based on the opinion of the ma g istrate judg e. Only the proc edura l de c isi on to gra nt s umm ary

jud g me nt s ua

sp on te on

the br e a c h o f j oint ve ntu re c la im require s additional comment. Be cause the mag istrate judg e did not abuse his discre tion in consideringsummary

judgme nt ag ainst Aubin sua sponte, the mag istrate judg e’s op ini on is a ff ir me d in fu ll. Count I I Iof Aubin’s sec ond amende d complaint is tit led “B rea ch of Partnership/Joi nt Venture ag ainst Welli ng ton,” and it was br oug ht ag ainst only one of the defe ndants, Wellington Industries, Inc (“ Wellington Industries”). J.A. 13. Welli ng ton Industries filed a motion for summar y judgme nt on “all claims” a nd attache d a memorandum re g ardingonly Count I I I
. Id. at 104. B eca use the supportingmemorandum addre ssed only

the par tnership aspe ct of Count I I I , id. at 105–08, Aubin ar g ues that Wellington Industries did not request summary judgme nt on the joint venture cla im and there fore the g rant wa s proce durally improper. Even a ssuming that Wellington Industries did not properly move for summar

y judgme nt on the joint venture cla im, the mag istrate judg e had the power to gr ant summary judgme nt sua sponte. Se e Ce lote xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986).No. 07-4239

Au bin Ind us tr ie s, I nc . v . Sm ith , e t a l.

- 3 - The proc edura l decision to g rant summary judgme nt sua sponte is review ed for abuse of discretion. Employe rs Ins. of W ausau v. Petroleum Specialties, Inc

. , 6 9 F .3 d 9 8, 10 5 ( 6th Cir. 1995). For

a sua sponte grant to be pe rmissible, the losing par ty must have had
no tic e that th e c ourt

wa s c on sid e ri ngsumma

ry jud g me nt o n th e c la im, a s w e ll a s a
rea sonable opportunity

to present its arguments and evide nce on the claim. Ibid. Notice and opportunity

are deter mined from the totality

of the proc eeding s below, including whether any party filed a motion for summar y judgme nt on the claim and whe ther the losing pa rty addre ssed the cla im in it s arguments. Exc el Energy , Inc. v . Cannelton Sales Co. , 246 F. App’ x 953, 959–60 (6th Cir. 2007). Aubin knew that the ma g istrate judg e wa s consideringsummary judgme nt on the joint venture cla im because Aubin itself had moved f or summary

judgme nt on the claim. J.A. 12 8. Th is m oti on

g ave Au bin an o pp or tun ity and an in c e nti ve to p re se nt a ll o f i ts evidenc e and a

rguments conce rning the joint venture c laim, which it did in it s supporting memorandum. Id. a t 13 8–40 . F ur the rm or e , Aub in a lso a dd re sse d th e iss ue in i ts r e ply brief in support of

summary judgme nt. Id. a t 25 7. Th e re fo re , th e ma g ist rate jud g e did not abuse his discre tion in gra nting summary

judgme nt for Wellington Industries sua sponte. The mag istrate judg e’s de cision g rantingsummary judgme nt to the defe ndants on all claims is AFF I RMED.