Opinion ID: 589465
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lack of Evidentiary Support.

Text: 26 We find that these allegations are not sufficient to defeat the summary judgment motion. Westwind has provided no evidence, beyond mere speculation, manifesting a primarily pecuniary motive on Carlson's part. The disputed conversations between Smith and Westwind employees occurred on May 26 and May 30. This provides little, if any, time for Smith to have recognized that the projections were overly optimistic and to have planned on misrepresenting Anchor's finances for the main purpose of getting Carlson's fees paid. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) (although inferences are to be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, if the factual context makes the nonmoving party's claim implausible, that party must come forward with more persuasive evidence than would otherwise be necessary to show that there is a genuine issue for trial). 27 Nor has Westwind provided evidence that Carlson actually benefitted from its alleged misrepresentation from which we could infer a personal pecuniary motive. The only benefit Carlson received from Anchor was its normal fees for its cash scheduling services, which it would have been owed regardless of its representations to Westwind. Although it is plausible that the revenue generated by selling Westwind's seafood could have facilitated Anchor's payment of Carlson's fees, Westwind offered no proof that Anchor sold the seafood before it paid any or all of its debt to Carlson. It is not even clear that Anchor owed Carlson a significant sum at the time of the alleged misrepresentations. Despite Westwind's assertion in its brief that Carlson was unpaid to the tune of approximately $25,000 at the time of the telephone conversations, we can find nothing in the record to support this. In Westwind's affidavit, it expressly states that it does not know the balance owed Carlson at that time. Smith states in her affidavit that neither she nor Carlson benefited or profited from the phone conversation or sale of fish. Even Westwind's employees admitted during their depositions that they did not know or had no reason to believe Carlson obtained a financial benefit from the alleged misrepresentation. In fact, Carlson deferred a payment owed to it by Westwind sometime in early June. If its main purpose was to receive payment of its debts, rather than to perform its function as Westwind's accountant, this deferment makes little economic sense. 28 Because Westwind has provided no evidentiary support for its speculative allegations as to Carlson's motives, we are unwilling to infer an intent on Carlson's part to deceive Westwind. We are especially wary of doing so in light of the fact that no California case law extends the main purpose rule to a situation where the hypothetical benefit is as attenuated and indirect as is the benefit to Carlson.