Opinion ID: 6105300
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: After a long-standing business relationship went bad, this, the ensuing litigation, went big. For years, a vendor provided food services at a private university, but in 2014 the university announced that it would competitively bid the contract for oncampus dining. Although the same vendor ultimately won that competition, the process of bidding, negotiating, and finalizing that new contract fractured the relationship beyond repair. About two years into the contract’s ten-year period of performance, the vendor sued the university for fraud, multiple breaches of contract, and alternatively for unjust enrichment. The university responded with fraud and breach-of-contract counterclaims. In resolving cross-motions for summary judgment and attendant motions to strike, the District Court rejected the bulk of both parties’ claims. All that survived summary judgment were relatively small pieces of the vendor’s breach-of-contract claims and portions of the university’s breach-of-contract claim. Rather than proceed to trial on the fragments of their respective cases, the parties referred the remaining claims and counterclaims to arbitration and jointly moved to dismiss them. The District Court granted that motion and entered final judgment, which the parties now appeal, primarily to dispute the summary judgment ruling. In reviewing the District Court’s summary judgment rulings de novo, see Cranbury Brick Yard, LLC v. United States, 943 F.3d 701, 708 (3d Cir. 2019), and the motion-tostrike order for an abuse of discretion, see Daubert v. NRA Grp., LLC, 861 F.3d 382, 389 (3d Cir. 2017), the District Court 5 correctly resolved much of this controversy, but it erred in rejecting the vendor’s fraud and breach-of-contract claims. Thus, we will affirm the judgment in part, vacate in part, and remand this case for further proceedings.