UPU Industries, Inc. v. Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc.
2:15-cv-02284
D. Kan.May 5, 2017Background
- TPRI sold high-density polyethylene product "9458" to UPU under contracts covering Sept–Dec 2014; payment terms: due 45 days after month of shipment.
- Amounts became due Jan 15, 2015 ($317,039.88) and Feb 15, 2015 ($236,699.40), totaling $553,739.28.
- TPRI filed a counterclaim seeking payment for these shipments; UPU earlier sued TPRI on an unrelated implied-warranty claim (separate denial of TPRI’s earlier SJ on UPU’s claim is noted).
- TPRI moved for summary judgment on its counterclaim; UPU conceded liability on the counterclaim and conceded principal and certain prejudgment interest through Nov. 4, 2016.
- Court entered summary judgment for TPRI for $553,739.28 principal, awarded prejudgment interest of $125,338.82 (including agreed amounts and interest at 10% from Feb 15, 2015 through May 5, 2017), and post-judgment interest per 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to summary judgment on counterclaim for unpaid shipments | UPU contested originally via setoff defense (based on its warranty claim) but ultimately conceded liability for the unpaid principal | TPRI sought judgment for $553,739.28 plus interest, arguing no genuine dispute on unpaid invoices | Granted: SJ for TPRI; UPU liable for $553,739.28 principal |
| Availability of setoff based on UPU’s warranty claim | UPU argued setoff for damages from its separate warranty claim | TPRI contended setoff was not sufficient to defeat the liquidated counterclaim | UPU effectively abandoned the defense by conceding liability; setoff did not prevent SJ |
| Prejudgment interest — rate and accrual period | UPU limited concession of interest through Nov 4, 2016 but did not oppose further interest explicitly | TPRI sought prejudgment interest from accrual (Jan/Feb 2015) through judgment at 10% (Kansas law) | Held: Prejudgment interest awarded at 10% p.a. from accrual (Jan 15/Feb 15, 2015 as applicable) through entry of judgment (May 5, 2017) totaling $125,338.82 |
| Post-judgment interest | UPU did not oppose post-judgment interest | TPRI requested post-judgment interest under federal law | Held: Post-judgment interest awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 at the federal rate (1.09% at entry) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard for genuine dispute) (setting the standard for when a reasonable jury could find for nonmoving party)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment) (explaining burdens when movant bears trial burden)
- West Virginia v. United States, 479 U.S. 305 (prejudgment interest accrual) (prejudgment interest runs from claim accrual until judgment)
- City of Herriman v. Bell, 590 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. standard on summary judgment) (applying view of evidence and inferences for nonmoving party)
- AE, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 576 F.3d 1050 (choice of law for prejudgment interest in diversity cases) (state law governs prejudgment interest rate)