Case Information
*1 13-3373-cv
Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summаry order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on оr after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedurе 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must citе either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summаry order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 25 th day оf August, two thousand fourteen.
PRESENT:
J OSÉ A. C ABRANES ,
C HESTER J. S TRAUB ,
R AYMOND J. L OHIER , J R .,
Circuit Judges .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
A RTHUR G LICK T RUCK S ALES , I NC .,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant ,
-v.- No. 13-3373-cv T RAVELERS C ASUALTY AND S URETY C OMPANY OF A MERICA ,
Defendant-Cross Defendant-Appellee
S UTPHEN E AST C ORP .,
Defendant-Cross Claimant-Counter Claimant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: K IRK O RSECK (Gerald Orseck, on the brief ),
Orseck Law Offices PLLC, Liberty, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE T. S COTT L EO (Gary D. Silver, Stoloff &
Silver, LLP, Monticello, NY, on the brief ), Leo & Weber, PC, Chicago, IL.
Appeal from the December 19, 2012, judgment and August 8, 2013, order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kenneth M. Karas, Judge ).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED
Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. (“Glick”), apрeals the judgment of the District Court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Cоmpany of America (“Travelers”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the prоcedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal, which we discuss only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
BACKGROUND
This dispute arises from contracts that Wolverine Fire Apparatus Company (“Wolverine”) entered into with two fire departments (“the Fire Districts”) for the sale of completed fire trucks. Travelers provided surety bonds to the Fire Districts guaranteeing Wolverine’s performance. In assembling the trucks, Wolverine ordered chassis from Glick. Wolverine began construction, but went into bankruptcy prior to completing the fire trucks. Nоw, Glick and Travelers each claim to possess a superior interest in the two truck chаssis.
After Wolverine filed for bankruptcy, the Fire Districts filed claims on their respective surety bonds against Travelers. Travelers then acquired the chassis from Wolverine’s bankruptcy estate аnd arranged for completion and delivery of the trucks by other providers. In this lawsuit, Glick seeks damages from Travelers for the value of the two truck chassis, for which it has never been paid by Wolverine.
In an opinion dated December 18, 2012, the District Court granted summary judgment in
favor of Travеlers.
Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. v. Stuphen E. Corp.
,
DISCUSSION
We review
de novo
a district court’s decision granting summary judgment.
Psihoyos v. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
,
As a threshold matter, all of Glick’s arguments on appeal are either raised for the first time
on appeal, or were raised for the first time in their motion for reconsideration. “[I]t is a well-
established general rule that an appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on
appeal.”
In re Nortel Networks Corp. Sec. Litig.
,
Our wаiver doctrine is prudential, however, and we may exercise discretion to consider
wаived arguments where necessary to avoid a manifest injustice.
In re Nortel Networks
, 539 F.3d at
133. “[T]he circumstances nоrmally do not militate in favor of an exercise of discretion to
address . . . new arguments on аppeal where those arguments were available to the [parties] below
and thеy proffer no reason for their failure to raise the arguments below.”
Bogle-Assegai v. Connecticut
In any event, our refusal to address Glick’s waivеd arguments will not result in manifest
injustice, because they are without merit. We have conducted a review of the record and of the
District Court’s two careful and comprehensive oрinions. We agree with the District Court that the
“Fire Districts qualify as buyers in the ordinary course, they took the chassis free of [Glick’s] security
interest, and [Travelers] is subrogated to assert that right following [Travеlers’] performance under
its surety bonds.”
Arthur Glick Truck Sales
,
CONCLUSION
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ argumеnts on appeal. For the reasons set out above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court, entered December 19, 2012, and the order entered August 8, 2013.
FOR THE COURT, Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court