Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
September 23, 2014, Decided
[*719] SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
Lois Turner appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Furman, J.), granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees. We assume the [*720] parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
This action arises out of a failed business relationship between Turner and defendants Temptu Inc., formerly known as Temptu Marketing Inc. ("Temptu"), and Michael Benjamin (collectively, "Defendants"). [**2] Turner alleges that after she entered into a partnership agreement with them, Defendants stole her concept of a home-use airbrush makeup system, thereby breaching the parties' contract. Turner's complaint asserts eight causes of action under New York law. On August 15, 2013, the district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of Turner's claims. This appeal followed.2
] "We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards that govern the district court's consideration of the motion." Summa v. Hofstra Univ., 708 F.3d 115, 123 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). ] "The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). A dispute concerning a [**3] material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. On a motion for summary judgment, "[w]e resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Summa, 708 F.3d at 123.
A. Breach of Partnership / Joint Venture Agreement
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
586 Fed. Appx. 718 *; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18173 **; 2014 WL 4694228
LOIS TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, -v.- TEMPTU INC., TEMPTU MARKETING INC., MICHAEL BENJAMIN, Defendants-Appellees.
Notice: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Furman, J.).
Turner v. Temptu Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114298 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2013)
venture, parties, unjust enrichment, partnership, airbrush, district court
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, General Overview, Business & Corporate Compliance, Breach, Breach of Contract Actions, Elements of Contract Claims, Business & Corporate Law, Joint Ventures, General Partnerships, Formation, Elements, Formation, Contracts Law, Contract Formation, Contracts Law, Types of Contracts, Contracts Implied in Fact, Agency Relationships, Fiduciaries, Torts, Business Torts, Unfair Business Practices, Quasi Contracts, Remedies, Equitable Relief, Quantum Meruit