EZ MAILING SERVICES, INC., a New Jersey corporation, AKA EZ Worldwide Express v. ORACLE TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS, INC., a California Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EZ MAILING SERVICES, INC., a New
Jersey corporation, AKA EZ Worldwide
Express,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ORACLE TRANSPORTATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., a California
Corporation,
Defendant,
And
GENCO TRANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Wisconsin
limited liability company,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-55798
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-09313-CBM-
JEM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 11, 2016
FILED
APR 05 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
EZ Mailing Services, Inc. (“EZ Mailing”) appeals the district court’s grant
of summary judgment in favor of Genco Transportation (“Genco”) for breach of
oral contract. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
EZ Mailing failed to present evidence that it entered into an oral agreement
with Genco that required Genco to (1) locate a competent carrier, and (2) ensure
that the carrier maintained sufficient and applicable cargo insurance. The evidence
that EZ Mailing submitted does not prove that such an oral agreement existed.
First, the April 2011 emails between EZ Mailing and Genco do not indicate that an
oral agreement of any sort was formed between EZ Mailing and Genco. Next, the
Load Confirmation and Master Transportation Service Agreement are proof of a
contract between Genco and Oracle Transportation Solutions, Inc., not between EZ
Mailing and Genco. The statement from Vijay Aggarwal’s declaration is too
vague to indicate that Genco consented to locating a qualified carrier, or that the
carrier would have adequate cargo insurance. Similarly, Sandra Lopez’s
deposition alludes only to an oral contract about cargo insurance in the amount of
$100,000, and not to the specific requirements of finding a competent carrier with
sufficient cargo insurance.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

For these reasons, the district court properly granted Genco’s motion for
summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --