STERLING PLANET, INC. v. GRP HOLDCO, LLC
A24A1281
Ga. Ct. App.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Sterling Planet, Inc. (Sterling), a marketer of renewable energy certificates (RECs), and GRP Holdco, LLC (GRP), an owner of renewable energy facilities, entered into REC transactions documented by written agreements.
- Disputes arose after GRP named Sterling the Responsible Party for managing RECs on the NAR Registry, later attempted to revoke that designation, and sought the transfer of all associated RECs back to its control.
- Sterling continued to sell RECs despite GRP’s demands for a reconciliation and transfer of RECs, leading to litigation over alleged conversion and breach of contract.
- Both parties filed motions for summary judgment and related evidentiary motions, including a motion to strike portions of an affidavit by Sterling’s principal.
- The business court ruled on various contract and tort claims, most notably dismissing Sterling’s breach of contract claim, denying summary judgment on GRP's conversion claim, and granting summary judgment against Sterling's promissory estoppel claim.
- Both sides appealed; Sterling challenged the striking of affidavit portions and adverse rulings on its claims, while GRP cross-appealed denial of summary judgment and sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Affidavit Portions | Sterling: Portions based on personal knowledge | GRP: Portions were irrelevant/conclusory or legal conclusions | Striking those portions was proper, as they were irrelevant or conclusory. |
| Promissory Estoppel Claim | Sterling: GRP made enforceable promises on RECs | GRP: Any promises were vague/indefinite, no authority | No sufficient, definite promise for estoppel; summary judgment for GRP. |
| Conversion of RECs | Sterling: GRP lacked property interest in RECs | GRP: RECs are specific intangible property subject to conversion | RECs are property for conversion claims; summary judgment denied as factual dispute remained. |
| Sanctions Under OCGA § 9-15-14 | GRP: Sterling’s contract claims were baseless | Sterling: Arguments had some support | No abuse of discretion in denying sanctions; Sterling's claims not wholly unjustifiable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Adams, Jordan & Herrington, P.C., 350 Ga. App. 184 (standard of summary judgment review)
- White v. Gens, 348 Ga. App. 145 (summary judgment burden on cross-motions)
- Baxley v. Baldwin, 279 Ga. App. 480 (striking affidavit material in summary judgment)
- Whitlock v. Moore, 312 Ga. App. 777 (discretion to strike affidavit portions)
- Woodstone Townhouses v. Southern Fiber Worx, 358 Ga. App. 516 (standards for promissory estoppel)
- Rubenstein v. Palatchi, 359 Ga. App. 139 (elements of conversion in Georgia)
- Taylor v. Powertel, 250 Ga. App. 356 (conversion applies to intangible property)
- Bearoff v. Craton, 350 Ga. App. 826 (conversion of social media accounts)
- Trotman v. Velociteach Project Mgmt., 311 Ga. App. 208 (conversion claim for intangible teaching materials)