Renzer BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH BAY EUROPEAN CORP., South Bay BMW, and Ryan Ludders, Defendants-Appellees, 378 F. App'x 47

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-appellant Renzer Bell (“plaintiff’ or “Bell”) appeals from the District Court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees South Bay European Corp., South Bay BMW, and Ryan Ludders (jointly “defendants”). Plaintiff claims on appeal that the District Court erred in interpreting the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), deciphering whether the parties were “merchants” under the UCC and in determining ultimately that there was no contract between Bell and the defendants. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal. We review de novo the District Court’s decision to grant

summary judgment and, in the course of that review, we resolve ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See, e.g., Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir.2008); Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n, 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.1999). We will affirm the grant of

summary judgment by the District Court if the record indicates that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Pilgrim v. Luther, 571 F.3d 201, 204 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the course of our evaluation, we afford plaintiff the “special latitude” that we give to pro se plaintiffs, see, e.g., Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir.1998). An independent review of the record, case law, and arguments on appeal in the instant case reveals that the District Court properly granted

summary judgment in favor of defendants. Substantially for the reasons stated in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion of September 12, 2008, Bell v. South Bay Eur. Corp., No. 06-CV-472, 2008 WL 4298542 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.12, 2008), we affirm the judgment of the District Court. CONCLUSION We have considered each of plaintiffs arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.