The Hellenic Ministry of National Defense et al v. Eagle Van Lines, Inc.

Filing 86

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/13/2015. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
THE HELLENIC MINISTRY OF NATIONAL
DEFENSE, et al.
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 13-0828

:
EAGLE VAN LINES, INC.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After a bench trial was held in this contract dispute, the
court issued a memorandum opinion and order on July 14, 2015.
(ECF Nos. 74 & 75).
and

Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant

Counter-Plaintiff

$450,242.29.

Eagle

Van

Lines

(“EVL”)

in

the

amount

On July 30, 2015, EVL filed a motion to alter or

amend judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).

(ECF No. 76).

Plaintiffs/Counter-defendants filed a response (ECF No. 82), and
EVL filed a reply (ECF No. 83).

For the following reasons, the

motion will be granted.
Courts have recognized three limited grounds for granting a
motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e): (1) to accommodate
an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new
evidence not previously available; or (3) to correct clear error
of law or prevent manifest injustice.

See United States ex rel.

Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th
Cir. 2002) (citing Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co.,

148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998)).

The third rationale applies

here.
EVL offers two grounds for altering the judgment.
EVL

asserts

invoices
Second,

that

79-110
EVL

outstanding

the
in

asserts
amounts

court

its

analysis.”

that
owed

“inadvertently

the
by

(ECF

court

the

failed
No.

failed

Hellenic

to

Army

to

76-1,

First,
include
at

3).

discuss

the

and

Navy

for

unpaid invoices.
EVL is correct on both fronts.

In the morass of paper, the

court inadvertently omitted discussion of invoices 79 through
110.

HAF acknowledges that while Captain Nikomanis testified

that these invoices were properly documented, he also said that
HAF did not pay them because it believed it had overpaid for
other invoices and was due a set off.

Now, HAF also contends

that EVL failed to document 60 of these 64 invoices and that the
conclusory testimony of Ms. Siu is insufficient.
At trial, HAF offered the same reasons for its refusal to
pay invoices 79 through 110 as it had for invoices 68 through
78, which reasons were rejected as explained in the July 14
opinion.

Captain Nikomanis testified that HAF does not dispute

that it did not pay EVL in the amount of $148,396.28, explaining
that this amount was withheld as offset for what HAF believed it
overpaid on prior invoices for unconventional additional charges
by EVL (e.g., charges for hazardous materials and/or expedited
2

and oversized shipments).

The court determined that Plaintiffs

improperly refused to pay invoices 68 through 78 due to charges
for hazmat materials and expedited and oversized shipments, and
denied “Plaintiffs’ request for a setoff for previously paid
invoices that ‘improperly’ included hazmat charges.”

(ECF No.

74,

that

at

61).

The

opinion

rejected

HAF’s

position

it

“previously overpaid on invoices that also included allegedly
improper charges for hazardous materials,” (ECF No. 74, at 60),
but

failed

to

address

the

$148,398.28

withheld

by

HAF

in

connection with invoices 79 through 110 based on the “right to
retention”

defense.

(See

supporting

testimony

14).

The

documentation

sufficient.

was

DTX

The

judgment

and

will

be

amended to reflect HAF’s obligation to pay this amount.
Secondly,
inadvertently

EVL

correctly

failed

to

address

Hellenic Army and Navy.
during

trial

(See DTX 16).

unpaid

court
by

the

HAF did not dispute

for

outstanding

invoices,

and

that

$458,014.11

Hellenic

Army

for

outstanding

outstanding

considered

amounts

the

remained

remained

from

the

(See DTX 16, EVL03530-03531).

Captain

that

$10,762.29

Navy

that

the

out

that

Hellenic

invoices.

points

Nikomanis

insufficiently

said
or

that

outstanding

the

HAF also acknowledges

these

wrongly

from

invoices

documented,

were
but

not
does

contend that it withheld these payments based on a somewhat

3

different “right of retention,” under Greek law,1 i.e., EVL’s
withholding of HAF’s goods.

The answer to the counterclaim

asserted an affirmative defense of set-off, but does not mention
a different right of retention.

ECF No. 12, at 4. The pre-trial

order also refers to an offset, but not to any other “right of
retention.” ECF No. 52, at 12.

At trial, there was one leading

question that asked: “Those are monies that the State Legal
Council has ordered the Hellenic Armed Forces not to pay based
on Eagle Van Lines’ withholding the goods which it considers
wrongful.
Nikomanis

Is that correct?” ECF No. 79 at 14-15.
answered

“Correct,”

but

on

Captain

cross-examination,

he

described this “right of retention” to relate to the purported
incorrect hazardous material charges.

ECF No. 80, at 27.

The

court understood the only objection to the payment of these
invoices was in the nature of a set-off, an argument that has
been

rejected.

No

other

basis

for

non-payment

has

been

established, and HAF otherwise acknowledged the legitimacy of
the invoices.

Accordingly, the amended judgment will reflect

these amounts too.
EVL’s Rule 59(e) motion contains some arithmetical errors,
however.

For instance, the motion seeks judgment in the amount

1

HAF does not cite to any notice of intent to rely on
foreign law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 44.1.
In an earlier opinion on
summary judgment, the court noted that the parties relied
exclusively on Maryland law. ECF No. 40, at 16, n.7.
4

of $1,067,032, but when the original amount, $241,778.05, is
added to the additional amounts of $148,396.28 + $458,014.11 +
$10,762.29, the total is $1,067,414.97. Accordingly, judgment in
favor of EVL will be amended to reflect the correct amount of
$1,067,414.97.

A separate order will follow.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

5