NOT PRECEDENTIAL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,

(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