Elite International Enterprise, Inc. v. Patton Wallcoverings, Inc. et al

Filing 142

OPINION and ORDER denying pltf's 141 MOTION to Amend Judgment. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ELITE INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE,
INC.,

Case No. 12-14620
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

Plaintiff,
v.
PATTON WALLCOVERINGS, INC., and
NORWALL GROUP, INC.
Defendants,
/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND [141]
Plaintiff filed a motion to amend findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), in response to this Court's October 31, 2016 opinion and
order granting in part Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion [133], denying Defendant's Rule 59(e)
motion [136], and amending this Court's prior opinion and order on recalculation of
damages [129] and amended final judgment (dockets 139, 140).
Plaintiff argues that the 2011 net income figure on which the Court relies to calculate
damages "is inaccurate as a portrayal of a full year of net income," calling it an "eightmonth net income." (Pl.'s Mot. 2.) Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in failing "to account
for the fact that the breach occurred on August 25, 2011, not on December 31, 2011" and
that the "[t]his problem should be fixed now to avoid the need for an appeal."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) provides that "[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be
filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). "Motions
to alter or amend judgement may be granted if there is a clear error of law, newly

discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or to prevent manifest
injustice." GenCorp, Inc. v. American International Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th
Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). The “purpose of Rule 59(e) is to allow the district
court to correct its own errors, sparing the parties and appellate courts the burden of
unnecessary appellate proceedings.” Howard v. United States, 533 F.3d 472, 475 (6th Cir.
2008) (quoting York v. Tate, 858 F.2d 322, 326 (6th Cir. 1988)). "A district court, generally
speaking, has considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant either type of motion,
. . . ." Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir.
2010).
The Court's calculation was not in error. The Court acknowledged in its prior opinions
and orders that the breach at issue occurred in August 2011. (Dkt. 139.) Yet, as set forth
in the Court's October 31, 2016 opinion and order at note 3, the losses Plaintiff sought for
that time period, exceeding six figures, were not supported. (Dkt. 139, n. 3.) To the extent
Plaintiff argues that the Court's June 8, 2012 opinion and order (dkt. 129) "recognized that
damages need to start in September 2011" and included that in its calculation, the same
was derived from an incorrect net income figure for Patton products in 2012 and that
opinion is amended by the October 31, 2016 opinion and order (dkt. 139). To the extent
Plaintiff argues that the 2011 "net income" figure used by the Court represents eight
months and not the full year, the figure was taken from Plaintiff's 2011 tax returns. While
the Sixth Circuit and this Court acknowledged the "possibility" that Plaintiff would have
earned more in 2011 "had the breach not occurred mid-year," the Court finds that on the
evidence before it, assigning further damages to 2011 would be speculative; indeed, it was

2

2011 in which Plaintiff also lost a large customer, Asio African. See Elite Int'l Enter., Inc. v.
Norwall Group, Inc., 628 Fed. Appx. 370, 376 (6th Cir. 2015).
As the Court noted in the prior opinion and order, using the 2011 net income provides
a reasonable degree of certainty in calculating damages. The Court finds no error of law
in its prior opinion and order, nor will the judgment result in manifest injustice. For these
reasons, Plaintiff's motion is denied.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above and in the Court's October 31, 2016 opinion and order
(dkt. 139) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (dkt. 141) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge

Dated: November 3, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on November 3, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol Bethel
Case Manager

3