Full title: SAAB ENTERPRISES, INC., dba ENJOY FOODS INTERNATIONAL, a California…
Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon
Case no: CV-06-774-ST.
Date published: Sep 19, 2007
Fact:
Plaintiff, Saab Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Enjoy Foods International (“Enjoy”), is a California corporation with its principal place of business in California. It is in the business of manufacturing and distributing jerky and other snack foods. Defendant, Bruce Packing Company, Inc., doing business as BrucePac (“BrucePac”), is an Oregon corporation with its principal place of business in Woodburn, Oregon. It is in the business of manufacturing meat and poultry products. BrucePac is owned by JDB Holdings, Inc. (“JDB”). Ferreira International, Ltda. (“Ferreira Int’l”) is a Brazilian entity 90% owned by JDB and 10% owned by Mr. Flavio Ferreira (“Ferreira”), a citizen of Brazil. Ferreira Int’l manufactures and processes beef jerky products at its facilities in Brazil. BrucePac uses its Brazilian affiliate, Ferreira Int’l, to produce beef jerky to be imported and distributed in the United States.
On April 8, 2005, Enjoy and BrucePac entered into a contract under which BrucePac agreed to manufacture for Enjoy approximately 40,000 pounds of beef jerky per month “at Bruce Pac’s manufacturing/processing plant located in Brazil.” Complaint, Exhibit A (“Contract”), ¶ 1. After early November 2005, for reasons that are disputed in this lawsuit and discussed below, BrucePac ceased producing beef jerky for Enjoy. On May 31, 2006, Enjoy filed this case, alleging three claims against BrucePac for: (1) breach of contract (First Claim for Relief); (2) breach of implied and statutory covenants of good faith and fair dealing (Second Claim for Relief); and (3) breach of implied warranty (Third Claim for Relief).
The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between parties with diverse citizenship. Thus, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC § 1332. The Contract provides for exclusive venue in this court. Contract, ¶ 6. On September 11, 2007 (docket #60), all parties filed written consents to allow a Magistrate Judge to enter final orders and judgment in this case in accordance with FRCP 73 and 28 USC § 636(c).
Now before this court is defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket #29). For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.
Issue:
ORDER:
For the reasons stated above, defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket #29) is DENIED.