08-4060 MMG Financial Corp. v. Midwest Amusements Park, LLC

Listen to this article

Contracts
Summary judgment

Where a party presented only hearsay in opposition to a summary judgment motion, the motion was properly granted.

“Midwest also attacks the evidence MMG submitted in support of its claim that it fulfilled the terms of its contract. Midwest suggests that to succeed on summary judgment MMG must ‘demonstrate that the monies were paid to [Cameron Motorsports].’ Midwest, however, conflates the burden MMG bears in proving its own breach-of-contract claim, which was not decided on summary judgment, with its burden as the party moving for summary judgment on Midwest’s breach-of-contract counterclaim. A party seeking summary judgment bears an initial burden of proving there is ‘no material question of fact with respect to an essential element of the non-moving party’s case.’ Delta Consulting Grp., Inc. v. R. Randle Constr., Inc., 554 F.3d 1133, 1137 (7th Cir. 2009). MMG met this burden by pointing to the absence of any evidence to establish that it had materially breached the parties’ finance agreement, an essential element of Midwest’s breach-of-contract claim. Once MMG met its burden on summary judgment, Midwest bore the burden of pointing to evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. Trade Fin. Partners, LLC, 573 F.3d at 406-07. Because Midwest had relied solely on the excluded hearsay evidence to prove that MMG had materially breached the contract, it did not point to evidence necessary to stave off summary judgment, and the district court did not err in granting MMG’s motion.”

Affirmed.

08-4060 MMG Financial Corp. v. Midwest Amusements Park, LLC

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Griesbach, J., Hibbler, J.

Full Text