Carrick Trucking, Inc. v. Nietert et al
ORDER denying 64 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on May 3, 2010. (lw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS F O R T SMITH DIVISION C A R R I C K TRUCKING, INC. d / b / a OUTLANDER GRAVEL v. R O D N E Y T. HOLDINGS, SERVICES, a n d JAMES GRAVEL C i v i l No. 09-2053
NIETERT; SAMARITAN INC.; OUTLANDER TREE INC.; JERRY DON HATTABAUGH; STEVEN BLACK d/b/a JSB DEFENDANTS ORDER
N o w on this 3rd day of May, 2010, comes on for consideration P l a i n t i f f ' s Motion To Amend The Judgment (document #64). Plaintiff
s u g g e s t s that the Court miscalculated its damages, pointing out t h a t there was testimony "that the value of the pre- and post-crush i n v e n t o r y that was converted by the Defendants was worth $270,550." W h i l e this is an accurate observation, the Court declined to award plaintiff damages for pre-crush inventory. Plaintiff
c o n t r a c t e d to be compensated on the basis of crushed gravel, while defendants Rodney Taylor Nietert and his corporations were
c o n t r a c t e d to blast the materials preparatory to crushing them. Thus the evidence supported an award to plaintiff for post-crushed m a t e r i a l s , but not for pre-crushed materials (blasted rock). The Judgment awarded plaintiff the adjusted value of all p o s t - c r u s h e d materials, and also awarded it the cost of the blast t o the extent it was paid by plaintiff rather than by Rodney Taylor N i e t e r t or his corporations. The Court believes this is accurate
and fair compensation for the damages sustained by plaintiff, and t h e motion will, therefore, be denied. I T IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion To Amend The J u d g m e n t (document #64) is denied. I T IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren JIMM LARRY HENDREN U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?