Submitted: August 25, 2017
Patrick Scanlon, Esquire and Darlene Wyatt Blythe, Esquire of
Law Office of Patrick Scanlon, P.A., Milford, Delaware;
attorneys for Plaintiff.
Christos T. Adamopoulos, Esquire of Connolly Gallagher, LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware and Victor K. Sapphire, Esquire of
Gerard Fox Law, P.C., Los Angeles, California (of counsel);
attorneys for Defendant.
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
William L. Witham. Jr. Resident Judge
the Court is Defendant Modernica, Inc.'s
("Modernica") Motion for Summary Judgment and
Plaintiff Navigant Consulting, Inc.'s
("Navigant") Response in opposition. As an issue of
fact remains, Modernica's motion is hereby denied.
lawsuit arises out of three separate agreements, whereby
Navigant contracted with Modernica to provide consulting
services to Modernica.
to the agreements, Navigant billed Modernica $248, 990.31 for
Navigant's purported services performed from December 4,
2014, to May 27, 2015.
January 25, 2015, to September 22, 2015, Modernica paid
Navigant $59, 666.34 for its services, leaving a balance of
$189, 323.37 still due to Navigant.
October 19, 2015, Modernica tendered $ 100, 000 to Navigant.
The amount was divided into three separate checks. Each check
contained the following statement: "final accord and
satisfaction." Navigant deposited the checks and has not
returned the funds conferred to it.
7, 2016, Navigant filed its Complaint in this Court, seeking
to recover the purportedly outstanding balance of $89,
contends that it was overcharged for Navigant's services.
Modernica claims that it repeatedly inquired about the
charges through email and telephone conversations, but
Navigant failed to respond substantively to Modernica's
concerns. Although Modernica did not provide a single email
to support its allegations, it relies upon an email attached
as Exhibit "I" to Navigant's Response to
Modernica's Motion for Summary Judgment. The email
provides in pertinent part: "If it is Modernica's
position that they [sic] do not intend to pay the invoices,
please state so." This language, according to Modernica,
apparently shows that Navigant was aware of Modernica's
dispute of the amount due before Modernica tendered the final
payment checks. Therefore, Navigant's deposit of the
checks labeled "final accord and satisfaction"
allegedly extinguished the debt owed by Modernica.
contends that Modernica never communicated its objections to
Navigant. In support of this contention, Navigant provided
email correspondence between the parties discussing further
payment of amounts owed by Modernica. According to Navigant,
even as late as October 9, 2015, Modernica promised further
payments without mention of a dispute. In regards to the
email included as Exhibit "I" in Navigant's
Response, Navigant alleges that it sought clarification as to
whether Modernica intended to make further payments to