Titan Feeding, LLC v. Corey Cattle Company, LLC
1:19-cv-02541
D. Colo.Sep 13, 2022Background
- Titan Feeding, LLC contracted with Corey Cattle Co., LLC to have Corey Cattle hold and feed cattle and to repurchase designated cattle when they reached target weight under four contracts (2017 dates; total contracted head counts: 564, 479, 490, 755).
- Corey Cattle sold 858 head from those contracts (20, 369, 302, and 167 head respectively) and kept the proceeds without remitting payment to Titan.
- Titan calculated the value of the Sold Cattle at $1,911,235.62 based on shipped reports, contract/lot matching, adjustments, premium/day-on-feed calculations, and feed costs; Titan demanded return or payment and terminated the contracts by June 30, 2019.
- Corey Cattle disputed the valuation and asserted the sales were inadvertent/branding errors or that Titan denied an opportunity to repurchase; its opposition relied largely on conclusory declarations and an interrogatory response showing different aggregate proceeds.
- The court applied Colorado law on conversion and breach, found no genuine dispute of material fact, granted summary judgment to Titan on conversion and several breach claims, and entered judgment for $1,911,235.62 plus 8% interest from June 30, 2019.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conversion: whether Corey Cattle unlawfully exercised dominion over Titan's cattle | Corey: Corey Cattle sold Titan's cattle without authorization, Titan demanded return/payment, and Corey refused — conversion established | Corey: Initial possession was authorized under the contracts; sales were inadvertent/in good faith and by the time of demand cattle were gone so no "refusal" | Held for Titan: sale and retention of proceeds were an unauthorized act of dominion; demand and refusal (or inability to return after unauthorized sale) supports conversion. |
| Breach of contract: whether Corey Cattle breached repurchase/payment obligations under the Contracts | Corey: Contracts required repurchase only upon reaching fat weight; Titan disrupted repurchase by removing cattle; factual dispute whether repurchase obligations were triggered | Corey: Sales occurred before repurchase opportunity; some sales were inadvertent or disclosed | Held for Titan: Corey Cattle breached by selling Titan's contract cattle and not remitting proceeds; Titan's recovery of remaining cattle was justified after breach. |
| Damages: whether Titan's $1,911,235.62 valuation and interest are recoverable | Titan: Valuation calculated from shipment/closeout reports, lot/head matching, adjustments, premiums, and feed costs; requests 8% prejudgment interest from breach date | Corey: Values speculative; disputes calculations; offers only conclusory disagreement and an interrogatory suggesting lower aggregate proceeds | Held for Titan: Court found Titan's method reasonably certain, declined unsupported contrary assertions, and awarded $1,911,235.62 plus 8% interest from June 30, 2019. |
| Sufficiency of defendant's factual denials at summary judgment | Titan: Defendant’s denials are conclusory and unsupported and therefore insufficient to create a genuine factual dispute | Corey: Offered declarations and interrogatory answers asserting disagreement with valuations and alleging inadvertence/branding errors | Held: Defendant’s conclusory, self-serving statements lacked explanation; under Celotex/Ellis standards they carry no probative weight, so facts were deemed admitted where supported by evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Itin v. Ungar, 17 P.3d 129 (Colo. 2000) (definition and elements of conversion under Colorado law)
- Byron v. York Inv. Co., 296 P.2d 742 (Colo. 1956) (broad definition of conversion as unauthorized dominion)
- Scott v. Scott, 428 P.3d 626 (Colo. App. 2018) (conversion does not require intent to permanently deprive)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (moving party’s burden on summary judgment and shifting burden of production)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute at summary judgment)
- W. Distrib. Co. v. Diodosio, 841 P.2d 1053 (Colo. 1992) (elements required to recover on a breach of contract claim)
- Mason v. Farm Credit of S. Colo., ACA, 419 P.3d 975 (Colo. 2018) (conversion claims can seek money damages for disposed livestock/crops)
- Barrett v. Tallon, 30 F.3d 1296 (10th Cir. 1994) (conversion claim plausibly stated where cattle were sold and proceeds converted)
- Ellis v. J.R.'s Country Stores, Inc., 779 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2015) (unsupported, conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)