The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hillman, District Judge
Plaintiff, Bright Lights USA, Incorporated ("Bright Lights") moves for summary judgment against Defendant, Elecsys Incorporated ("Elecsys"), claiming that Elecsys has admitted to the material facts in this case, including its breach of a contract between the parties.
For the reasons expressed below, Bright Lights's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
The Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. There is complete diversity between the parties in the underlying action. Plaintiff, Bright Lights, is incorporated in the State of New Jersey with its principal place of business in Barrington, New Jersey. Defendant, Elecsys, represents itself as being a Colorado corporation with its principal place of business in Pekin, Illinois.*fn1 The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
In or around July 2007, Elecsys submitted a purchase order to Bright Lights for specially manufactured goods. Elecsys agreed to pay $93,060 in exchange for the delivery of goods any time after November 1, 2007. According to Bright Lights, the parties agreed that Elecsys would pay cash in advance of delivery. Elecsys denies that it ever agreed to pay in advance of delivery.
Bright Lights manufactured the goods and issued invoices to Elecsys. However, on or around October 30, 2007, Elecsys attempted to cancel the purchase order. Despite Bright Lights's insistence to execute the contract, Elecsys refused to accept delivery of the goods or to pay for them. For its part, Elecsys argues that Bright Lights breached the contract, enabling Elecsys to terminate the agreement altogether.
On or around January 26, 2010, Bright Lights instituted this action against Elecsys. Since that time, Bright Lights has twice amended its complaint, and now alleges that Elecsys breached the parties' contract. Bright Lights avers that it is entitled to remedies pursuant to New Jersey statutory law, as well as the doctrines of promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel.
Particularly relevant to the present motion is that, on or around May 25, 2010, Bright Lights served Elecsys with discovery requests, including a written request for admissions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Elecsys failed to respond to Bright Lights's request in a timely manner. As a result, Elecsys, relying on Rule 36, moved for summary judgment against Elecsys, asserting that by its failure to respond to the request for admissions, Elecsys admitted to, and thus conclusively established, all material facts in favor of Bright Lights.
On or around August 20, 2010, Elecsys moved for an extension of time to respond to Bright Lights's request for admissions. The Magistrate Judge, in an order dated September 20, 2010, granted Elecsys an extension of time to respond and withdrew Elecsys's deemed admissions.
Presently before the Court is Bright Lights's pending Motion for Summary Judgment.
A. Standard for Summary ...