The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Skretny United States District Judge
In this action, Plaintiff Quebecor World (USA) Inc. ("Quebecor") alleges that Defendant Recognition Communications, Inc. ("RCI") breached contracts to pay for printing services Quebecor provided in connection with the publication of the Texas Travel Guide Program and the 2006 Texas Accommodations Guide. Presently before this Court is Quebecor's Motion for Summary Judgment.*fn1 This Court has reviewed and considered the motion papers and finds that oral argument is unnecessary. For the following reasons, Quebecor's motion is granted.
Quebecor is a commercial print media corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in North Haven, Connecticut. (Statement of Undisputed Facts, Docket No. 30, ¶ 1.) RCI is a custom magazine publisher and advertising sales representative. (Statement of Undisputed Facts, ¶ 2.) It is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Shawnee Mission, Kansas. (Statement of Undisputed Facts, ¶ 2.)
The salient facts are not in dispute. Quebecor and RCI entered into two agreements that are the subject of this litigation: the Travel Guide Agreement for the Texas Travel Guide Program and the Accommodations Guide Agreement for the 2006 Accommodations Guide. (Statement of Undisputed Facts, ¶¶ 3, 17.)
The parties entered into the Travel Guide Agreement on July 11, 2003.*fn2 (Statement of Undisputed Facts, ¶ 3.) The agreement calls for RCI to pay Quebecor for printing services for the Texas Travel Guide Program for the years 2004 -- 2006. (Statement of Undisputed Facts, ¶ 3.) Pursuant to the agreement, Quebecor printed and delivered to RCI approximately 500,000 copies of the Texas Travel Guide. (Statement of Undisputed Facts, ¶¶ 4, 6.) RCI accepted the travel guides, but has not remitted the agreed-upon payment of $592,628.99, despite Quebecor having invoiced it for that amount on December 8, 2005. (Statement of Undisputed Facts, ¶¶ 6, 9, 11, 12, 15.)
The parties entered into the Accommodations Guide Agreement on July 28, 2005.*fn3 (Statement of Undisputed Facts, ¶ 17.) The agreement requires RCI to pay Quebecor for printing services for the 2006 Texas Accommodations Guide. (Statement of Undisputed Facts, ¶ 17.) Pursuant to the agreement, Quebecor printed and delivered to RCI 803,072 copies of the 2006 Texas Accommodations Guide. (Statement of Undisputed Facts, ¶¶ 18, 19.) RCI accepted the accommodation guides, but has not remitted the agreed-upon payment of $248,080.23, which includes freight charges, despite Quebecor having sent invoices on December 13, 2005, and March 31 and May 5, 2006. (Statement of Undisputed Facts, ¶¶ 20, 23, 25, 28.)
A. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary Judgment is warranted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to 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 non-moving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Ford v. Reynolds, 316 F.3d 351, 354 (2d Cir. 2003). A fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
The party seeking summary judgment must first demonstrate the absence of any disputed material facts. The opposing party is then required to "go beyond the pleadings" and "designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir. 2008). To carry this burden, the opposing party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts," Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986), and it "may not rely simply on conclusory statements or on contentions that the affidavits supporting the motion are not credible . . . or upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading," Goenaga v. March of Dimes Birth Defects Found., 51 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal quotation and citations omitted).
In assessing whether summary judgment is appropriate, the court's obligation is to view the evidence and the inferences drawn from the evidence "in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Adickes v. S.H. Kress and Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S.Ct.1598, 1609, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). The court's function is not "to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. "Only when reasonable minds ...