Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Zheijiang Zec Import & Export Co., Ltd v. J.C. Sussman
February 9, 2011
ZHEIJIANG ZEC IMPORT & EXPORT CO., LTD., PLAINTIFF,
J.C. SUSSMAN, INC., J.C. SUSSMAN INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC.,
JUN CONG AND XIAO HONG YANG, DEFENDANTS.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
This commercial action arises out of defendants' alleged failure to
make complete payment on six invoices. On or about May 2, 2008,
plaintiff filed its original Complaint against defendant J.C. Sussman,
Inc., a wholesale importer of fabrics and finishing products, on the
grounds of breach of contract, account stated and goods sold and
delivered. On April 30, 2009, plaintiff's counsel learned that the
defendant corporation had been dissolved. By Memorandum Decision and
Order dated November 12, 2009, this Court granted plaintiff's motion
to amend and allowed plaintiff to add Jun Cong, Xiao Hong Yang and
J.C. Sussman International Enterprises, Inc. as parties to the instant
action under causes of action for successor liability (de facto merger
and mere continuation) and abuse of corporate formality (alter ego
theory). Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint on November 17, 2009;
on or about January 7, 2010, defendants filed their Answer to Amended
Complaint, which included a counterclaim for abuse of process. By
Memorandum Decision and Order dated July 2, 2010, this Court
granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendants' counterclaim.*fn1
Presently before this Court is plaintiff's motion for partial
summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure ("FRCP"). Specifically, plaintiff seeks summary judgment on
two claims: (1) its claim for account stated against defendant J.C.
Sussman, Inc. and (2) its claim for successor liability against
defendant J.C. Sussman International Enterprises, Inc.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if 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." See FRCP 56(c). Specifically, the party seeking summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue respecting any material fact exists. See Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53, 69 (2d Cir. 2005). If the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to come forward with "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." See FRCP 56(e). When deciding a summary judgment motion, the court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all factual inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion. See McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276, 280 (2d Cir. 1999). The question is whether, in light of the evidence, a rational jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party. ...
Buy This Entire Record For