978-1285770178 Case Printout Case CPC-18-07

Page 1

412 Fed.Appx. 218, 2011 WL 303204 (C.A.11 (Ga.))

(Not Selected for publication in the Federal Reporter)

(Cite as: 412 Fed.Appx. 218, 2011 WL 303204 (C.A.11 (Ga.)))

This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter.

Not for Publication in West‘s Federal Reporter See Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally governing cita-

Rule 36-2 and Find CTA11 Rule 36–3)

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

WOODRIDGE USA PROPERTIES, L.P., Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

Buyer appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals held that:

(1) buyer’s attempted rescission of contract was not effective, and

(2) buyer failed to preserve evidentiary argument for review.

343 Sales

343IV Performance of Contract

343IV(C) Delivery and Acceptance of Goods

343k178 Acts Constituting Acceptance

343k178(4) k. Use or other disposition by buyer. Most Cited Cases

343k179 Effect of Acceptance

343k179(6) k. Protest, objection, notice, or conditional acceptance, and effect thereof. Most Cited Cas-

es

Buyer’s attempted rescission of contract to buy truck trailers by seeking either refund of sales price or delivery

of trailers that allegedly were never delivered was not effective, under Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), requiring

Page 2

412 Fed.Appx. 218, 2011 WL 303204 (C.A.11 (Ga.))

(Not Selected for publication in the Federal Reporter)

(Cite as: 412 Fed.Appx. 218, 2011 WL 303204 (C.A.11 (Ga.)))

fy seller of alleged problems with trailers, title documents, and dealer reassignment documents until all trailers were

170BVIII Courts of Appeals

170BVIII(D) Presentation and Reservation in Lower Court of Grounds of Review

170BVIII(D)2 Objections and Exceptions

170Bk627 Evidence and Witnesses

170Bk628 k. Admission or exclusion of evidence. Most Cited Cases

Albert A. Chapar, Jr., Rebecca E. Strickland, Office of Albert Al Chapar, Jr., Conyers, GA, for Defendant–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. D.C. Docket No. 1:07–cv–03044–

CAP.

the district court erred by denying Woodridge’s motion for summary judgment; and (3) that the district court erred

by denying Woodridge’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of its efforts to mitigate its damages. After review

and oral argument, we affirm.

I. Grant of Judgment as a Matter of Law

Woodridge argues that the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of STM for sev-

same standards as the district court.” Slicker v. Jackson, 215 F.3d 1225, 1229 (11th Cir.2000). “In evaluating a de-

fendant’s Rule 50 motion, made at the close of the plaintiff’s case, we consider all of the evidence in a light most

favorable to the plaintiff and grant the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences. We may affirm a judgment

as a matter of law only if the facts and inferences point so overwhelmingly in favor of the movant … that reasonable

people could not arrive at a contrary verdict.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Page 3

412 Fed.Appx. 218, 2011 WL 303204 (C.A.11 (Ga.))

(Not Selected for publication in the Federal Reporter)

(Cite as: 412 Fed.Appx. 218, 2011 WL 303204 (C.A.11 (Ga.)))

court also concluded that although it was unclear whether McCarty was acting as the agent of any party during the

negotiation of the contract in March, by April, McCarty and Woodridge were acting together to sell the trailers be-

within a reasonable time after delivery or tender. Id. § 11–2–602(1).

[1] The uncontroverted evidence shows that in April of 2007, Sandy Utley, a general partner in Woodridge, vis-

ited the Southeast Freight Lines lot in Atlanta where the eighty-seven trailers were stored. He met McCarty at the lot

and was shown the trailers. At that point, McCarty gave Utley forty-four original certificates of title and MVR–2

forms. Utley noted that the transferee line in the MVR–2 forms was blank at that time. Utley asked about the title

money for both Woodridge and McCarty.

“Where a tender has been accepted: (a) The buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should

have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy.” Id. § 11–2–607(3)(a).

Woodridge asserts that STM breached the agreement by conveying MVR–2 forms with the transferee line left blank.

delivery of the title certificates and MVR–2 forms. In late June 2007, McCarty admitted to Utley that he sold several

trailers and that the proceeds from those sales were gone. Still, at that time, Utley returned twenty original title cer–

tificates and MVR–2 forms to McCarty so that he could complete the sale of twenty more trailers.

After continuing to receive no sale proceeds from McCarty for almost three months, Woodridge sent a demand

letter to STM on July 9, 2007. The letter alleged that the trailers had never been delivered and sought delivery of the

the title documents and MVR–2 forms, Woodridge acted inconsistently with STM’s ownership of the trailers by un-

dertaking to sell them. By the time Woodridge notified STM of any problem with the deal, all of the trailers were

gone. Woodridge never tendered any trailers, title documents, or MVR–2 forms to STM to allow STM to cure any

breach. Under these facts, the district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of STM.

Page 4

412 Fed.Appx. 218, 2011 WL 303204 (C.A.11 (Ga.))

(Not Selected for publication in the Federal Reporter)

(Cite as: 412 Fed.Appx. 218, 2011 WL 303204 (C.A.11 (Ga.)))

II. Failure to Grant Summary Judgment to Woodridge

Because the district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of STM, it did not err in

denying Woodridge’s motion for summary judgment.

III. Denial of Motion in Limine

serve the question for review.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.