Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Xerox Corp. v. RP Digital Services, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. New York

February 8, 2017

XEROX CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
RP DIGITAL SERVICES, INC., ULTRAGRAPHICS, INC., a/k/a John T. Crossley, Inc., Defendants.

          DECISION AND ORDER

          DAVID G. LARIMER United States District Judge.

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Xerox Corporation ("Xerox") commenced this action for breach of contract against defendant RP Digital Services, Inc. ("RP") and Ultragraphics, Inc., a/k/a John T. Crossley Inc. ("Ultragraphics") (collectively "defendants"). Xerox seeks a money judgment against the defendants for failure to pay monies due pursuant to a Purchase Agreement and equipment Finance Lease (Dkt. #1). Defendants assert counterclaims against Xerox for breach of contract and lost profits. (Dkt. #8). Familiarity with the underlying facts is presumed.

         Xerox now moves for summary judgment on both of the counts contained in the Complaint (Dkt. #1) - breach of a Purchase Agreement by the defendants, and breach of the Finance Lease by Ultragraphics - pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. (Dkt. #11). For the reasons set forth below, that motion is granted.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         I. The Purchase Agreement

         On September 28, 2010, RP executed a Purchase Agreement for a D242 Printer with Xerox. Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, RP agreed to make monthly payments to Xerox based on the number of prints produced by the printer. The Purchase agreement provides that, in the event of default by RP, Xerox may cease providing maintenance services on the printer and may require immediate payment as liquidated damages for all amounts due, plus interest, and any costs and attorneys' fees incurred by Xerox in attempting to enforce the Purchase Agreement.

         II. The Finance Lease

         On January 18, 2012, Ultragraphics executed a finance lease agreement (“Finance Lease”) with Xerox. Pursuant to the Finance Lease, Ultragraphics leased a X770 printer and agreed to make specified monthly minimum payments, in addition to monthly payments during the term for print charges, calculated with reference to the number of prints produced by the printer, both for a term of 60 months. The Finance Lease provided that if Xerox was unable to maintain the printer in accordance with the agreement, Ultragraphics' exclusive remedy would be for Xerox to provide it with an identical, or comparable, printer. The Finance Lease also stated that upon default by Ultragraphics, Xerox could, inter alia, remove the leased equipment, cease providing maintenance services, and require immediate payment as liquidated damages of all amounts then due, plus interest, and demand any remaining payments due for the remainder of the Finance Lease term.

         Xerox commenced the instant action on February 3, 2016, claiming that defendants had breached the Purchase Agreement and Lease Agreement by failing to make the agreed-upon payments. Defendants answered the complaint, denying the bulk of Xerox's allegations and asserting counterclaims for breach of the Lease Agreement based on Xerox's alleged failure to provide equipment without defects and in good working order, and the lost profits that ensued.

         Xerox now moves for summary judgment on both of its causes of action, and seeks damages in the amount of $3, 237.80 plus costs and attorneys' fees on Count 1 (breach of the Purchase Agreement) and $83, 618.76, plus costs and attorneys' fees, on Count 2 (breach of the Finance Lease). For the reasons that follow, Xerox's motion (Dkt. #11) is granted, and Xerox is awarded damages on Count 1 in the amount of $3, 361.44, and on Count 2 in an amount to be determined.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Standard on a Motion for Summary Judgment

         Rule 56(c) provides that a moving party is entitled to summary judgment “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.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The Court's role in determining a motion for summary judgment is not “to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. When considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court must draw ...


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.