Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180319_0000654.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:50:28+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Doosan Machine Tools America Corp. v. Machinery Solutions, Inc.
Doosan Machine Tools America Corp. v. Machinery Solutions, Inc.
Machinery Solutions, Inc., Frank Carl Amick, and James B. DuBose, Defendants.
This matter is before the court pursuant to Doosan's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 25.) Specifically, Doosan requests that the court grant it “judgment on the pleadings dismissing the affirmative defenses of Defendants” and “judgment against MSI and the Guarantors [Amick and DuBose] on its claims for breach of contract.” (Id. at 1.) Defendants oppose Doosan's Motion in its entirety. (ECF No. 30.) For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES Doosan's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
On April 3, 2017, Doosan commenced the instant action against Defendants in this court asserting state law claims for breach of contract, conversion, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment. (ECF No. 1 at 7 ¶ 40-12 ¶ 83.) On July 5, 2017, Doosan filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 25.) On July 19, 2017, Defendants filed a Memorandum in Response to Doosan's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 30), to which Doosan filed a Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 31) on July 26, 2017.
The court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) based on Doosan's allegations that there is complete diversity of citizenship between it and Defendants, and the amount in controversy herein exceeds the sum of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75, 000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. (See ECF No. 1 at 1 ¶ 1-2 ¶ 5.) MSI is a corporation organized under the laws of South Carolina with its principal place of business in Lexington County, South Carolina. (Id. at 2 ¶ 2.) Amick is a resident of Lexington County, South Carolina (id. ¶ 3) and DuBose is a resident of Orangeburg County, South Carolina. (ECF No. 11 at 2 ¶ 6.) Doosan is incorporated in the State of New York and has its principal place of business in Pine Brook, New Jersey. (ECF No. 1 at 1 ¶ 1.) Moreover, the court is satisfied that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00 in accordance with Doosan's representation. (Id. at 2 ¶ 5.).
Rule 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed-but early enough not to delay trial-a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). “[A] motion for judgment on the pleadings is decided under the same standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. IRS, 361 F. App'x 527, 529 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing Independence News, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 568 F.3d 148, 154 (4th Cir. 2009)); see also Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 353 (4th Cir. 2014) (citing Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999)). The key difference between a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and a Rule 12(c) motion is that on a 12(c) motion, the court “consider[s] the answer as well as the complaint” and “documents incorporated by reference in the pleadings.” Fitchett v. Cnty. of Horry, S.C., C/A No. 4:10-cv-1648-TLW-TER, 2011 WL 4435756, at *3 (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 2011) (citations omitted).
A motion for judgment on the pleadings is intended to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint and will operate to dispose of claims “where the material facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking to the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noted facts.” Cont'l Cleaning Serv. v. UPS, No. 1:98CV1056, 1999 WL 1939249, at *1 (M.D. N.C. Apr. 13, 1999) (citing Herbert Abstract v. Touchstone Props., Inc., 914 F.2d 74, 76 (5th Cir. 1990)). “An issue of fact is deemed to be material if the outcome of the case might be altered by the resolution of the issue one way rather than another.” Walker v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., C/A No. No. 4:16-cv-01388-RBH, 2017 WL 1020884, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2017) (quoting 5C Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1368 (3d ed. 2011)). “Thus, the plaintiff may not secure a judgment on the pleadings when the answer raises issues of fact that, if proved, would defeat recovery.” Id. “Accordingly, ‘[t]he court must accept all well pleaded factual allegations in the non-moving party's pleadings as true and reject all contravening assertions in the moving party's pleadings as false.'” Catlin Specialty Ins. Grp. v. Lowcountry Oysters of Murrells Inlet, LLC, C/A No. No. 2:17-1528-RMG, 2018 WL 369154, at *1 (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2018) (quoting Lewis v. Excel Mech., LLC, No. 2:13-CV-281-PMD, 2013 WL 4585873, at *1 (D.S.C. Aug. 28, 2013)). “[W]hen the plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings, the motion should be granted if, ‘on the undenied facts alleged in the complaint and assuming as true all the material allegations of fact in the answer, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'” Walker, 2017 WL 1020884, at *1 (quoting Lowden v. Cty. of Clare, 709 F.Supp.2d 540, 546 (E.D. Mich. 2010)).
Doosan is entitled to relief because Doosan and MSI entered into a binding contract when they agreed to the 2009 Contract, and Amick and DuBose entered into a binding contract with Doosan when they signed the Guarantees; MSI breached the 2009 Contract when it failed to remit payment for the Outstanding Orders, and in addition Amick and DuBose breached the Guarantees when they refused to personally and promptly pay all sums due and owing by MSI to Doosan when MSI failed to pay Doosan the money collected related to the Outstanding Orders; and Doosan has suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of the breaches by MSI, Amick, and DuBose because it has not been paid the more than $1.66 million due for the machines that it has been actively attempting to collect for more than a year since amounts first came due.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1332
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1368
 v. 
 v. 
 v.