McNaughton-McKay Electric Co. v. Linamar Corp.
Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 206. Richard F. Suhrheinrich, Circuit Judge; Julia Smith Gibbons, Circuit Judge and David W. McKeague, Circuit Judge.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0096n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Jan 26, 2012
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, GIBBONS and McKEAGUE; Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. This case arises from the cancellation and subsequent settlement of a
manufacturing contract between Chrysler, LLC (Chrysler) and Defendant Linamar Corporation
(Linamar). In 2008, Chrysler contracted with Linamar to produce four “special purpose machines”
for the manufacture of dual-clutch transmissions at Chrysler’s Kokoma, Indiana facility. Linamar
subcontracted with Ann Arbor Machine (AAM) to build the machines. AAM agreed to pay Plaintiff
McNaughton-McKay Electric Company (McNaughton) $424,015.42 to supply the electrical
components necessary for construction.
After McNaughton supplied the electrical components but before AAM paid it, Chrysler
cancelled its contract with Linamar. Chrysler paid Linamar $10.25 million in satisfaction of its
claims; Linamar, in turn, paid AAM $5 million. AAM filed for bankruptcy and never paid
McNaughton-McKay v. Linamar Corporation
McNaughton under the parties’ supplier contract. AAM’s creditor took possession of the special
purpose machines, which were subsequently sold at auction.
McNaughton sued Linamar under a theory of unjust enrichment alleging, inter alia, that the
Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision in Morris Pumps v. Centerline Piping, Inc., 273 Mich. App.
187 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) supported a general contractor’s liability for materials provided by a
subcontractor’s unpaid supplier.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Distinguishing Morris Pumps, the district court denied McNaughton’s motion and granted Linamar’s
motion for summary judgment. McNaughton appeals the district court’s order.
After carefully reviewing the district court’s opinion, the record, and the applicable law, we
are satisfied that the issues were thoroughly and correctly resolved by the district court and that
summary judgment in favor of Linamar was proper. We are similarly satisfied that the instant case
is factually dissimilar from Morris Pumps, wherein the general contractor retained and used the
materials of its subcontractor’s supplier despite constructive knowledge that the supplier had not
been paid. See id. at 195-96. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court on the
grounds stated in its well-reasoned opinion dated August 11, 2010.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?