663 F.Supp.3d 684
N.D. Tex.2023Background
- COIM USA Inc. (Plaintiff) sold polyurethane products to Sjobrand Inc. (Defendant) under purchase orders between May–July 2021.
- Defendant ordered and received $453,897.00 of product and returned $147,977.00, leaving an unpaid balance of $305,920.00 for goods Defendant accepted and retained.
- Plaintiff sued (Nov. 3, 2021) for breach of contract, suit on sworn account, and quantum meruit, and moved for summary judgment supported by invoices, declarations, a demand letter, and requests for admission.
- Defendant did not respond to the summary judgment motion or submit opposing evidence.
- The court applied Texas UCC and common-law standards, accepted the movant’s undisputed facts where unchallenged, and found Plaintiff proved the elements of breach and of a sworn account.
- The court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff for $305,920.00 and granted Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees under Texas law, ordering Plaintiff to submit evidence of reasonable fees for the court to fix.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendant breached contract by not paying for accepted goods | Plaintiff sold goods, Defendant accepted/retained them, price due $305,920 | No responsive evidence submitted; no contested factual or legal defense presented | Court: breach established; summary judgment for Plaintiff on breach of contract |
| Whether Plaintiff may recover on a sworn account | Invoices and deliveries show sale/delivery and unpaid amount | No response or evidence contesting amount or reasonableness | Court: elements met; summary judgment for Plaintiff on sworn account |
| Whether quantum meruit relief is needed | Alternative claim if contract remedy fails | Not contested | Court: not reached because contract/signed remedies resolved case |
| Whether Plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees and procedure for award | Prevailing on contract entitles Plaintiff to fees under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code; Plaintiff presented claim and gave demand | No response | Court: Plaintiff entitled to fees; ordered Plaintiff to submit evidence of reasonable fees within 30 days; court will determine amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (defines summary judgment/genuine-issue standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant’s initial burden at summary judgment)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (limits credibility determinations at summary judgment)
- Eversley v. MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172 (5th Cir. 1988) (accepting movant’s undisputed facts when no opposition)
- Pathfinder Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Great W. Drilling, Ltd., 574 S.W.3d 882 (Tex. 2019) (elements of breach of contract under Texas law)
- Baker Hughes Process & Pipeline Servs., L.L.C. v. UE Compression, L.L.C., 938 F.3d 661 (5th Cir. 2019) (discusses revocation of acceptance under the UCC)