The LaSalle Group, Inc. v. Pendleton, 2:12-cv-10821

Plaintiff LaSalle entered a Subcontract Agreement with Tiger Masonry for a Gulfport, Mississippi project; Defendant had an ownership interest in Tiger.
Defendant and his then-wife Green signed a Personal Guaranty agreeing to be personally liable for Tiger’s obligations under the Subcontract; Green did not actually sign, as Defendant signed her name without permission.
Tiger defaulted on the Subcontract, and Plaintiff obtained a judgment against Tiger for $952,115.44, which remains unpaid.
Plaintiff asserts breach of the Personal Guaranty and fraudulent misrepresentation (for forging Green’s signature), seeking recovery plus fees.
Defendant did not respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment; the court considers the motion on the briefs.
The court addresses choice-of-law, but finds liability under the guaranty under either Michigan or Mississippi law; damages and fees are awarded in the instant litigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Pendleton liable on the Personal Guaranty for Tiger's obligations?	Pendleton assumed personal liability for Tiger's performance.	No defense stated; Pendleton disputes enforceability due to mis-signature.	Yes; Pendleton liable for breach of the Personal Guaranty.
Whether Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in this action to enforce the guaranty.	Guaranty provides for fees in actions to enforce it.	No fee entitlement for this litigation under the guaranty.	Yes; Plaintiff awarded reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this action.
Whether the fraudulent misrepresentation claim is actionable based on forging Green’s signature.	Forgery and material misrepresentation induced entering the Subcontract.	Unclear signature issues; law does not support misrepresentation claim.	Yes; summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on fraudulent misrepresentation.
What choice of law governs the contract and whether it affects liability?	Courts should apply the state law that best respects the contract.	State law should be determined to potentially limit liability.	Liability under the guaranty is upheld under either Michigan or Mississippi law; choice of law does not change result.
Whether summary judgment was proper given the nonresponse of the defendant.	Plaintiff’s briefing establishes entitlement.	No response to test the moving party's burden.	Granted; the moving party's burden met despite lack of response.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court 1986) (movant bears initial burden on summary judgment)
Calderone v. United States, 799 F.2d 259 (6th Cir. 1986) (summary judgment standard in the Sixth Circuit)
Pack v. Damon Corp., 434 F.3d 810 (6th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment requires genuine disputes of material fact)
Carver v. Bunch, 946 F.2d 451 (6th Cir. 1991) (nonresponse to motion for summary judgment cannot alone grant summary judgment)
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1941) (choice of law in cases of no express provision follows forum state's rules)
Uhl v. Komatsu Forklift Co., 512 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2008) (applying Michigan choice-of-law principles in diversity cases)
Mill’s Pride, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 300 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2002) (restatement conflict-of-laws approach for contract choice)
Gass v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 558 F.3d 419 (6th Cir. 2009) (tort choice-of-law generally follows Michigan law when appropriate)
Titan Ins. Co. v. Hyten, 491 Mich. 547 (Michigan 2012) (elements of fraudulent misrepresentation; Michigan standard applied)
Allmand Assoc., Inc. v. Hercules Inc., 960 F. Supp. 1216 (E.D. Mich. 1997) (factual sufficiency for misrepresentation under Michigan law)