Hodak v. Madison Capital Management, LLC et al
Filing
237
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, Plt's 228 MOTION for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 6/7/2011.(STB)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
KEN HODAK,
Plaintiff,
v.
MADISON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
**
**
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
**
Civil Action No. 5:07-5-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
**
**
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Hodak’s Motion
for Summary Judgment [DE 228].
UAR GP Services, LLC, has filed a
Response [DE 232], and Hodak has filed a Reply [DE 235] in further
support of his Motion.
The Court being adequately advised, this
Motion is ripe for a decision and shall be denied for the reasons
stated below.
In his present Motion for Summary Judgment, Hodak argues that
UAR GP Services, LLC, operated as the alter ego or instrumentality
of the co-defendant Madison entities (Madison Capital Management,
LLC, and Madison Investment Partners 24) and that the Madison
entities are, thus, liable for any wrong committed by UAR GP
Services, LLC, once the veil between those entities is pierced.
However, this Court has already entered an opinion as to this
issue, dismissing all claims as to the Madison entities.
That
decision was the subject of an appeal by Hodak, and, in its
decision of September 10, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld this district court’s award of summary judgment in favor of
the Madison defendants on the issue of veil piercing, “albeit on
different reasoning.” Specifically, the Court of Appeals concluded
that Hodak could not pierce that veil because he failed to show any
injury caused by fraud or injustice separate and apart from UAR GP
Services’ inability to pay its debt (assuming that the district
court concluded that UAR GP Services, LLC, had committed a wrong,
i.e., a breach of contract, upon remand).
While the Court has now concluded that UAR GP Services, LLC,
did
breach
its
contract
with
Hodak
[DE
227],
this
Court
is
precluded from examining anew whether veil piercing is appropriate
as that issue has already been decided by the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals.
See Consolidation Coal Co. v. McMahon, 77 F.3d 898,
905 (6th Cir. 1996) (“Under the law of the case doctrine, [this]
court is ordinarily precluded from reexamining an issue previously
decided by the same court, or a higher court in the same case.”).
Nor is there any merit to Plaintiff’s argument that the law of the
case doctrine does not preclude renewed consideration of this issue
because “[the] decision is clearly erroneous and would work a
manifest injustice.” While Hodak reasons that this is so because
the Sixth Circuit remanded the breach of contract claim to this
Court and, thus, made “no decision on whether a ‘wrong’ had been
committed” for the purposes of his veil piercing claim, his
argument does not change the fact that the Sixth Circuit Court of
2
Appeals held that his efforts to pierce UAR GP Services, L.L.C.’s
corporate veil was without merit for other reasons.
For this
reason, the Court declines Hodak’s invitation to revisit the issue.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Hodak’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [DE 228] is DENIED.
This the 7th day of June, 2011.
3
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?