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.

Construction Resources Group, LLC v. Element Financial CORP.

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

May 23, 2017

CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES GROUP, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; MARK LIVINGSTON, an individual; MAX MULLER, an individual, Plaintiffs,
v.
ELEMENT FINANCIAL CORP., a Delaware corporation; CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY d/b/a DOOSAN INFRACORE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AMERICA, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, ELEMENT FINANCIAL CORP., Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS MAXWELL, an individual, Third-Party Defendant/ Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY d/b/a DOOSAN INFRACORE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AMERICA, Third-Party Defendant.

          ORDER

          VICKI MILES LaGRANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This case is scheduled for trial on the Court's June 2017 trial docket.

         Before the Court is defendant/counterclaimant/third-party plaintiff Element Financial Corp.'s (“Element”) Motion for Summary Judgment, filed April 3, 2017. On April 24, 2017, plaintiffs Construction Resources Group, LLC (“CRG”), Mark Livingston (“Livingston”), and Max Muller (“Muller”) and third-party defendant/third-party plaintiff Thomas Maxwell (“Maxwell”) (collectively “Plaintiffs, ” for purposes of this Order) filed their responses. On May 1, 2017, Element filed its reply. Based upon the parties' submissions, the Court makes its determination.

         I. Introduction

         This case arises from the purchase of a Doosan model DL420-3 wheel loader (“Loader”) in November 2013. Plaintiffs began operating in 2012. In late 2013, Plaintiffs entered into an agreement to excavate a lake. The agreement provided that CRG would excavate the land for the lake in exchange for the ability to use the dirt that it excavated. In or about November 2013, in anticipation of the commercial sales of dirt, Maxwell, who was a principal member and director of CRG's operations at the time, began searching for a wheel loader that would permit CRG to load trucks more efficiently. Maxwell eventually recommended to the other CRG principals that CRG purchase a Doosan wheel loader.

         CRG obtained the Loader through H&E Equipment, an authorized Doosan dealer. Neither CRG nor its principals had sufficient cash flow to purchase the Loader outright, and it was suggested to them that the purchase could be financed through Element. The Loader was delivered to CRG on December 31, 2013. However, although the Loader was delivered on that date, Plaintiffs had not yet completed the necessary paperwork to finance the Loader. The Element Lease Agreement (“Element Agreement”) was not presented to Plaintiffs until over three weeks after delivery on January 23, 2014. Livingston signed the Element Agreement on behalf of CRG as a managing member. Element also required Livingston, Muller, and Maxwell to personally guarantee the obligations under the Element Agreement. Element paid Doosan the full purchase price for the Loader and leased it to CRG under the Element Agreement for a specified monthly payment with an option to purchase the Loader at the end of a specified period for a specified price.

         Plaintiffs used the Loader from January 2014 through November 2014. However, during this period of time, the Loader suffered at least nineteen failures, fourteen of which were related to the Loader's engine and emissions system. CRG did not make any rent payments after August 2014, and in November 2014, Element repossessed the Loader. Element contends that plaintiffs owe $98, 711.95 for the Loader under the Element Agreement.

         Element now moves this Court to grant it judgment as a matter of law as to Counts I - IV of plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and to grant judgment as a matter of law against Plaintiffs in the amount of $98, 711.95.

         II. Summary Judgment Standard

         “Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving party is entitled to summary judgment where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party. When applying this standard, [the Court] examines the record and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” 19 Solid Waste Dep't Mechs. v. City of Albuquerque, 156 F.3d 1068, 1071-72 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

         “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Furthermore, the non-movant has a burden of doing more than simply showing there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Neustrom v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 156 F.3d 1057, 1066 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

         III. Discussion

         A. Whether the Element Agreement is a “finance lease”

         Element asserts that Plaintiffs' obligations under the Element Agreement are enforceable because the Element Agreement is a “finance lease” as defined by Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2A-103(g).[1] Plaintiffs contend that the Element Agreement is not a “finance lease.” Section 2A-103(g) defines “finance lease” as follows:

         “Finance lease” means a lease with respect to which:

(i) the lessor does not select, manufacture or supply the ...

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.