United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JEFFREY T. GILBERT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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 Defendant39;s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No.
109]. For the reasons stated below, Defendant39;s Motion
[ECF No. 109] is denied.
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).
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 [nonmovant39;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.
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
party39;s version of the facts is more likely true.
Shepherd v. Slater Steels Corp., 3d 998');">168 F.3d 998, 1009
(7th Cir. 1999).
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
39;a concise response to the movant39;s statement that
shall contain ... a response to each numbered paragraph in
the moving party39;s statement, including, in the case of
any disagreement, specific references to the affidavits,
parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied
upon.39;" 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
39;statement ... of any additional facts that require the
denial of summary judgment.39;" Cichon v. Exelon
Generation Co., L.L.C., 3d 803');">401 F.3d 803, 809 (7th Cir.
2005) (quoting Local Rule 56.1).
failure of a nonmoving party to abide by the requirements of
Local Rule 56.1 carries significant consequences. "When
a responding party39;s statement fails to dispute the facts
set forth in the moving party39;s statement in the manner
dictated by the rule, those facts are deemed admitted for
purposes of the motion." Id. Specifically, the
responding party39;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 party39;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).
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 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,