Metabank v. Interstate Commodities, Inc.

MOTION for Summary Judgment

D.S.D.May 9, 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION METABANK, Plaintiff, v. INTERSTATE COMMODITIES, INC., Defendant. Case No. 3:16-cv-03007-RAL DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs like MetaBank are not entitled to proceed to trial. As the Court is well-aware, a plaintiff’s post-discovery failure of proof as to an essential element necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Such is the case here. MetaBank’s Complaint seeks recovery of amounts it never funded. Namely, MetaBank contends it once held a first-priority security interest in the 2015 crops of C&B Farms, LLC (“C&B”), but subordinated its lien to Interstate Commodities, Inc. (“ICI”), “upon payment to [MetaBank] of the 2015 input expenses already funded by [it to C&B] totaling $825,784.57.” Compl. ¶ 19 [ECF No. 1]. The purported unrepaid remainder of the amounts MetaBank allegedly funded—or $480,514.25—is due to it from ICI, MetaBank contends.1 The contention MetaBank had funded $825,784.57 of the 2015 crop input expenses of C&B is critical to each cause of action in MetaBank’s Complaint. But MetaBank grossly overstated, by more than double, the amount it actually funded. As was pointed out by both C&B and ICI before this action, and is now conclusively shown via party and third-party discovery, MetaBank’s funding allegation is neither supported, nor 1 Compl. ¶¶ 25, 30, 34, 36, and prayer for relief ¶¶ 1–4. Case 3:16-cv-03007-RAL Document 30 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 288 - 2 - supportable. Worse, MetaBank was already repaid on the much smaller sum it did fund two years ago, in 2015. Even more alarming, a significant component of MetaBank’s claimed $825,784.57 in funding was actually funded by ICI. Having availed itself of discovery in this action, MetaBank cannot meet its burden of proof and establish (A) it funded more of C&B’s 2015 input expenses than it has been repaid on, and (B) that such funding by it totaled $825,784.57. Because MetaBank has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its case, ICI is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).2 Dated: May 5, 2017. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP By: /s/ Todd Langel Todd P. Langel todd.langel@faegrebd.com Dasha Ternavska (pro hac vice) dasha.ternavska@faegrebd.com 801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor Des Moines, IA, 50309 Telephone: (515) 248-9000 Facsimile: (515) 248-9010 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 5th day of May, 2017, the foregoing document was filed with the Clerk of Court via CM-ECF System, which sends notice of same to all counsel of record. By: /s/ Todd Langel Todd P. Langel 2 Additionally, MetaBank failed to satisfy the statutory prerequisites to filing its conversion claim. Case 3:16-cv-03007-RAL Document 30 Filed 05/09/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 289