NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 20-2921
_____________
LIFE CELEBRATION, INC.,
Appellant
v.
XEROX CORPORATION
______________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(District Court No. 2:18-CV-02941)
District Judge: Hon. Gene E.K. Pratter
Argued May 20, 2021
Before: McKee, Restrepo, Fuentes, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion filed: June 11, 2021)
Joseph R. Podraza, Jr. [ARGUED]
William H. Trask
Lamb McErlane
One South Broad Street, Suite 1500
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Counsel for Appellant
Benjamin D. Hartwell
Ward Greenberg Heller & Reidy
1835 Market Street, Suite 650
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tony R. Sears [ARGUED]
Ward Greenberg Heller & Reidy
1800 Bausch & Lomb Place
Legacy Tower
Rochester, NY 14604
Counsel for Appellee
_______________________
OPINION*
_______________________
McKee, Circuit Judge.
Life Celebration appeals the dismissal of its claim that Xerox breached its duty as
a landlord by failing to inspect and maintain the HVAC system and other environmental
controls in the space Life Celebration subleased from Xerox. The district court held that
Life Celebration did not present evidence that Xerox owed the prerequisite duty and
granted summary judgment. We agree and will affirm.
In a thorough and well-reasoned Memorandum Opinion, the district court
explained why it granted summary judgment.1 The court carefully considered and
rejected Life Celebration’s argument that Xerox owed the asserted duty. Life Celebration
failed to provide evidence from the Managed Service Agreement between it and Xerox or
present arguments based on relevant principles of property law that this duty indeed
existed. We can add little to elaborate on the district court’s analysis and discussion.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1
Life Celebration, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., No. 18-2941, 2020 WL 5096945 (E.D Pa Aug.
28, 2020).
2
Accordingly, we will affirm the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in its
August 28, 2020 Memorandum and Order.
3