Camsoft Data Systems, Inc. v. Southern Electronics Supply, Inc. et al

Filing 430

RULING AND ORDER denying 391 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 399 Motion to Alter Judgment; denying 427 MOTION to Alter Judgment Rendered July 27, 2011 filed by Camsoft Data Systems, Inc., MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memora ndum and Affidavit filed by Camsoft Data Systems, Inc., MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CIBER, Inc., MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum filed by Camsoft Data Systems, Inc. ; granting 429 MOTION to Alter Judgment Rendered July 27, 201 1 filed by Camsoft Data Systems, Inc., MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum and Affidavit filed by Camsoft Data Systems, Inc., MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CIBER, Inc., MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum filed by Camsoft Data Systems, Inc... Further, all parties are ORDERED to file briefs as described herein. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 08/16/2012. (KDC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CAMSOFT DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 09-1047-JJB
SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS SUPPLY,
INC., ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on multiple motions. Plaintiff CamSoft Data
Systems (“CamSoft”) brings a motion to certify the April 30, 2012 judgment (doc.
382) as final.

(Doc. 389).

The Active-Southern Defendants as well as

Defendants Dell and CIBER filed a joint opposition. (Doc. 401). CamSoft has
also filed a motion to amend or alter the Court’s July 27, 2011 ruling (doc.399).
Several Defendants filed individual oppositions (docs. 409, 410, 411, 412).
CamSoft also filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum in
support of this motion to amend (doc. 427), which defendants jointly opposed
and CamSoft seeks leave to reply (doc. 429). Defendant CIBER also seeks
summary judgment on the one remaining claim against it. (Doc. 391). CamSoft
opposed the motion (doc. 393) and CIBER replied (doc. 398). For the following
reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to file a reply (doc. 429) is GRANTED. The other
motions are DENIED.
Motion to Certify April 30, 2012 Ruling as Final Judgment

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides, in relevant part, that a
district court may direct entry of final judgment on fewer than all of the claims and
parties involved only upon an express determination that “there is not just reason
for delay.” The Fifth Circuit has held that these judgments should be issued only
in “exceptional occasions when an immediate appeal would avoid imposing an
undue hardship or injustice on the party seeking appeal.” PYCA Industries v.
Harrison County Waste Mgmt., 81 F.3d 1412, 1421 (5th Cir. 1996).
In motion, CamSoft asks the Court to certify its April 30, 2012 judgment for
interlocutory appeal. (Doc. 389). In this ruling, the Court dismissed all RICO and
federal antitrust claims for lack of standing. (Doc. 382). In the process several
Defendants were dismissed. CamSoft correctly notes that the effect of this ruling
is the complete dismissal of these claims and defendants. CamSoft argues that
there is no just cause for delay for the following reasons: the appeal arises from
the same transaction or occurrence; the only remaining claims involve state law;
and all parties would be in an uncertain state if forced to proceed without appeal
of this ruling.
CamSoft contends there is a danger of duplicative discovery and trial
relating to the RICO and federal antitrust claims in that, if the Court’s ruling is
reversed after trial, all parties would have to go back and litigate these claims.
Defendant counter, and the Court agrees, that this is not the sort of hardship and

2

prejudice Rule 54(b) is designed to prevent—otherwise appeals under this rule
would be common.
CamSoft also wishes the Court’s earlier ruling denying remand to be
certified. However, the motion currently under consideration is to have the April
30, 2012 ruling certified. That ruling only dealt with joint venture, RICO, and
federal antitrust claims. The issue of jurisdiction, which was the subject of the
remand motion, was not a part of the current 54(b) motion and thus would not be
presented to the Federal Circuit for appeal even if the Court were to grant the
motion.
As the Court finds CamSoft has not shown the sort of exceptional
circumstances that justify this rare certification, the motion (doc. 389) is DENIED.
Motion to Amend July 27, 2011 Ruling Pursuant to Rule 54(b)
Next is CamSoft’s motion to amend the Court’s July 27, 2011 ruling (doc.
313) under Rule 54(b). For this motion, the relevant part of Rule 54(b) states that,
if a district court does not direct entry of final judgment on ruling or order that
adjudicates fewer than all of the claims or parties, such a ruling or order “may be
revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and
all the parties’ rights and liabilities.” Though less exacting than the standard of a
Rule 59(e) motion to amend, courts are guided by the same principles.
Livingston Downs Racing Ass’n, Inc., v. Jefferson Downs Corp., 259 F.Supp. 2d

3

471, 475 (M.D. La, 2002). Generally, a Rule 59(e) motion should be granted
where the judgment is based on manifest error of fact or law; newly discovered or
previously unavailable evidence; an intervening change in the controlling law; or
manifest injustice would otherwise result. Thus, the Court will attempt to balance
the interests of finality and fairness in deciding whether to reconsider the July 27,
2011 ruling. Id. at 477.
Before getting to the merits of this motion, the Court will address a motion
to file a supplemental memorandum in support of its motion to amend by
CamSoft (doc. 427). In its motion, CamSoft announces it has “recently obtained
the affidavit of Gregory Meffert, which contains previously unavailable facts
relevant” to its motion to amend. (Doc. 427). In opposition, Defendants first
argue the reply is untimely in that it was filed 49 days after their opposition. They
also note that the Court denied Defendants’ motion for an extension of the
deadline to file their opposition. (Doc. 422). CamSoft sought leave to file a reply
to this opposition. (Doc. 429). This motion (doc. 429) is GRANTED. The motion
to file a supplemental memorandum (doc. 427), however, is DENIED. Though
styled a supplemental memorandum, the Court finds it is really a reply brief.
Reply briefs are not the proper place to raise new arguments. As that is the
entirely of the substance of the brief, the motion is DENIED. Of course, CamSoft
is free to file a new motion to amend under Rule 54(b).

4

As for the merits of the motion to amend, Plaintiff seeks to have three
things amended regarding the Court’s July 27, 2011 ruling: first, based on the
Court’s recent finding that there was no joint venture between CamSoft and the
Active-Southern Defendants, CamSoft seeks to have the business torts based on
joint venture restored; second, it seeks to have its trade secret claim against
CIBER revived; third it seeks to have the trade secret claim against MMR
revived. The Court will address these in reverse order.
Prior to the Court’s July 27, 2011 ruling in which it dismissed CamSoft’s
trade secret claim against CIBER, CamSoft had sought leave to amend its
complaint in order to add allegations relating to it RICO and antitrust violations
and also to add two new parties. (Doc. 291 at 1, 3). This motion was granted
and CamSoft was allowed to file a third amended complaint but was limited to
adding the claims relating to RICO and antitrust.

(Doc. 305). CamSoft now

asserts it was prevented by the Court from amending its petition to add
allegations relating to its trade secret claim against CIBER. (Doc. 399-1 at 3).
The Court agrees with CIBER that CamSoft is far too late in the game to raise
this issue; if it was unhappy with the limitation presented by the Court—which
simply granted CamSoft exactly what it asked for—it should have said so then.
Waiting until CIBER is on the cusp of dismissal is too late. In short, the “new
evidence” CamSoft bases its Rule 54(b) motion on is not new at all—it is more
than a year old. It is too late to seek reconsideration of the dismissal of the trade

5

secret claim against CIBER. This request is DENIED. The request as it relates to
MMR is DENIED for the same reasons.
As for the revival of the business torts, CamSoft’s argument is without
merit. CamSoft claims that, since there is no joint venture, the peremptive period
imposed by Louisiana partnership law does not apply. See La. R.S. 12:1502(B).
The Court’s earlier ruling, however, found these business torts had prescribed
precisely because they were based on joint venture. (Doc. 313 at 8). As there is
now no joint venture, then there can be no claims for torts based on joint venture
brought. The motion is DENIED.
CIBER’s Motion for Summary Judgment
CIBER seeks to have the sole remaining claim, for state law conspiracy.
CIBER correctly notes that civil conspiracy is not an independent tort and
requires a substantive tort. (Doc. 391-2 at 3-4). CIBER then points out that there
are no other claims against it remaining and asks for the conspiracy claim to be
dismissed. CamSoft correctly notes that CIBER overlooks is the fact that the
underlying tort does not have be pending against it, rather it must be pending
against any of its alleged coconspirators. (doc. 393 at 3).

In its reply, CIBER

concedes this point and counters that the only remaining claim a conspiracy
allegation could attach to is for misappropriation of trade secrets. As the Court
has already said there is no evidence of CIBER’s part in such a conspiracy,
CIBER argues the conspiracy claim must be dismissed. (Doc. 398 at 3, citing
6

doc. 313 at 10). As the record is unclear as to whether there are any remaining
claims a conspiracy allegation to attach, the motion (doc. 391) is DENIED.
It appears to the Court that there is some confusion among the parties as
to exactly what claims remain at this point and against whom they are pending.
In light of this, each party is given ten (10) days to outline what claims remain as
to that party. In doing so, each defendant is to state what claims were originally
pending and, if applicable, the document in which a particular claim was
dismissed. CamSoft is to list, defendant by defendant, its original claims and, if
applicable, the document in which a particular claim was dismissed.

No

argument or discussion is needed.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to file a reply memorandum (doc. 429)
is GRANTED; its motion to file a supplemental memorandum (doc. 427) is
DENIED. The motion to alter or amend the July 27, 2011 ruling (doc. 399) is
DENIED. The motion to certify the April 30, 2012 ruling as a final judgment is
DENIED.

CIBER’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 391) is DENIED.

Further, all parties are ORDERED to file briefs as described above.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 16, 2012.





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE7DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

8