This appeal arises out of a declaratory judgment action brought by Plaintiff Deutz Corporation. Deutz sought, inter alia, a declaration that it had good cause to terminate a longstanding business relationship with Defendant Engine Distributors, Inc. (“EDI”)—a relationship governed by a series of Distributor Agreements that Deutz claims EDI has materially breached. In response, EDI filed a number of counterclaims against Deutz, some of which the district court dismissed. After more than a year of litigation, Deutz moved for summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claim and on each of EDIs then-remaining counterclaims. The district court granted Deutzs motions as to its declaratory judgment claim and EDIs counterclaims, concluding that Deutz had demonstrated good cause to terminate the Distributor Agreements.
1
EDI now appeals the district courts order, challenging the district courts ruling on Deutzs declaratory judgment claim, as well its ruling on EDIs counterclaims for (1) breach of contract, (2) violation of the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (4) promissory estoppel.
After review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error in the district courts summary judgment ruling.
2
EDIs primary contention on appeal is that the district court misapplied the summary judgment standard by resolving disputed issues of fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). But to the extent that EDI has not failed to properly preserve its arguments, the alleged disputed facts that EDI points to either were not disputed in the district court or, if disputed, are not actually material to the district courts ruling. See id. (“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.” (emphasis added)); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). (“[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment․”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district courts grant of summary judgment in favor Deutz.
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. In the same order, the district court also granted EDIs cross motion for summary judgment as to Deutzs claim for violations of Georgias Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Deutz has not appealed this ruling.
2
. “We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court.” Williamson v. Brevard Cnty., 928 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks omitted).
PER CURIAM: