Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cheese Depot Inc. v. Sirob Imports Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

April 16, 2018

CHEESE DEPOT, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Plaintiff,
SIROB IMPORTS, INC., a New York Corporation, Defendant.



         Plaintiff, Cheese Depot, Inc. ("Plaintiff"), has filed this breach of contract action against Defendant, Sirob Imports, Inc. ("Defendant"). This matter is now before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 109]. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion [ECF No. 109] is denied.


         Summary judgment is proper when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A genuine issue of material fact exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of establishing the lack of any genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 317');">477 U.S. 317, 323(1986).

         In determining whether there is a genuine issue of fact, a district court "must construe the facts and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Foley v. City of Lafayette, 359 F, 3d 925, 928 (7th Cir. 2004), And the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. The nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In other words, the "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmovant's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [nonmovant]." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

         In considering a motion for summary judgment, a court does not "evaluate the weight of the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses or determine the ultimate truth of the matter" but rather "determine[s] whether there exists a genuine issue of triable fact." Chelios v. Heavener, 3d 678');">520 F.3d 678, 685 (7th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). The court cannot make credibility determinations, weigh the evidence, or decide which inferences to draw from the facts; these are jobs for a factfinder. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Betaco, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 32 F.3d 1126');">32 F.3d 1126, 1138 (7th Cir. 1994); Sarsha v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 3 F.3d 1035');">3 F.3d 1035, 1041 (7th Cir. 1993). Rather, "[t]he court has one task and one task only: to decide, based on the evidence of record, whether there is any material dispute of fact that requires a trial." Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 3d 918');">24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994). The court, therefore, must look at the evidence as a jury might, construing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and avoiding a temptation to decide which party's version of the facts is more likely true. Shepherd v. Slater Steels Corp., 3d 998');">168 F.3d 998, 1009 (7th Cir. 1999).

         Local Rule 56.1 requires a party moving for summary judgment to submit a statement of material facts with "specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon to support the facts . . . ." Local Rule 56.1(a). Then, "the party opposing the motion for summary judgment is required to file and serve 'a concise response to the movant's statement that shall contain ... a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement, including, in the case of any disagreement, specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon.'" Curtis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 3d 215');">807 F.3d 215, 218 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B)). Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) also "requires specifically that a litigant seeking to oppose a motion for summary judgment file a response that contains a separate 'statement ... of any additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment.'" Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., L.L.C., 3d 803');">401 F.3d 803, 809 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Local Rule 56.1).

         The failure of a nonmoving party to abide by the requirements of Local Rule 56.1 carries significant consequences. "When a responding party's statement fails to dispute the facts set forth in the moving party's statement in the manner dictated by the rule, those facts are deemed admitted for purposes of the motion." Id. Specifically, the responding party's failure "to cite to any admissible evidence to support facts presented in response" renders "the facts presented by the moving party as undisputed." Id. The purpose of the Local Rule 56.1 statement of facts is to identify the relevant evidence supporting the material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed, not to make factual or legal argument. Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 2006). A party's obligation to support its facts with evidence is mandatory, and the Seventh Circuit repeatedly has held that the district court is within its discretion to enforce strict compliance with the requirements of Local Rule 56.1. See Yancick v. Hanna Steel Corp., 3 F.3d 532');">653 F.3d 532, 537 (7th Cir. 2011); Patterson v. Indiana Newspapers, Inc., 3d 357');">589 F.3d 357, 359 (7th Cir. 2009); Bordelon v. CM. Sch. Reform Bd. of Trustees, 33 F.3d 524');">233 F.3d 524, 528 (7th Cir. 2000).


         Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached an agreement dated July 24, 2007, for the sale of certain property and equipment located in Romania ("the Chicago Agreement"). The Chicago Agreement, which is attached to and incorporated in Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, reads in its entirety:

This agreement, made in Chicago, Illinois, July 24, 2007 is between Nick Boboris and John Livaditis, In this agreement, Nick Boboris, President, DBA Sirob Imports, 21 Gear Avenue, Lindenhurst, NY 11757 is referred to as NB. John Livaditis, Director, DBA Lacto Baneasa, Cheese Factory, 16 E. Old Willow Road, Prospect Heights, IL 60070, who has the power to enter into contracts on behalf of Cheese Factory, referred to as JL.
JL agrees to sell NB 75% of the Lacto Baneasa building and equipment for $810, 000.00 with a $10, 000.00 down payment on signing of the contract. The balance is to be paid within 8 years with 7% interest. Interest only payments will start on January 1, 2008. The principal balance will be reduced by $30, 000.00 annually by December 31st each year with the balance due on September 1, 2015 or sooner.
NB will buy the inventory of the 2007 season; estimated amount is 85, 000 kg of Feta and 5, 000 kg of Hard Cheese. After he checks the quality at the factory, he will make a commitment to buy it or not buy it. Also all the new plastic containers ordered for the season 2008 will pay cost. The price of the Feta will be $3.85 per kg, plus shipping costs. The price of the Hard Cheese will be $4.85 per kg, plus shipping costs. The terms for the inventory will be 120 days, paying weekly, as he collects money for sales.
SIROB IMPORTS, INC. Accepted by: signed Nick Boboris, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.