Die Services International, LLC v. Deutsch Systems Inc
Filing
48
OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 15 Motion to Strike. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (Loury, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DIE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
Plaintiff,
No. 2:13-cv-11312
Hon. Gerald E. Rosen
vs.
DEUTSCH SYSTEMS INC.
Defendant.
___________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
COUNTERCLAIM
Plaintiff Die Services International, LLC engaged Defendant Deutsch
Systems, Inc. to refurbish the hydraulic and electrical controls on a hydraulic press
at Plaintiff’s Belleville, Michigan facility. (Plf’s Am. Compl., Dkt. # 5, at ¶¶ 15,
17-27). Defendant allegedly failed to complete its work pursuant to the parties’
agreement, so Plaintiff sued Defendant for Breach of Contract and Unjust
Enrichment/Quantum Meruit. (Plf’s Compl., Dkt. #1; Plf’s Am. Compl., Dkt. #5).
After Defendant failed to answer, Plaintiff moved for default judgment on May 1,
2013. (Plf’s Mtn., Dkt. # 8). Defendant answered Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
the next day. (Def’s Answer, Dkt. # 10). The parties then stipulated to an order
1
that both (1) withdrew Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment; and (2) found
Defendant’s Answer to be timely filed. (May 7, 2013 Stip. Order, Dkt. # 11).
Thirteen days after filing its Answer, Defendant filed a counterclaim against
Plaintiff. (Def’s Countercl., Dkt. # 13). Just like Plaintiff, Defendant asserts
claims of Breach of Contract and Unjust Enrichment, as well as brings a
Detrimental Reliance count. (Id.). Although there is no dispute that the parties’
various claims against each other are part and parcel to the parties’ agreement and
performance thereunder, the parties vehemently disagree as to agreement’s scope
and the parties’ respective performance.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s
Counterclaim. (Plf’s Mtn., Dkt. # 15). Under Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, a party “must” assert any counterclaim that “arises out of the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim”
concurrent with its answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a). The parties do not dispute
whether Defendant’s Counterclaim is compulsory -- it is. Kane v. Magna Mixer
Co., 71 F.3d 555, 562 (6th Cir. 1995) (under the “logical relationship” test, “a
claim’s compulsory status depends on whether (1) the claim arises out of the same
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim;
and (2) the claim is one that the party ‘has’ at the time that the party is to file his
2
responsive pleading”). Rather, the parties dispute whether Defendant filed the
Counterclaim in a timely manner.
The recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make clear
that “[a]n amendment to add a counterclaim [is to be] governed by Rule 15.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 13 advisory committee notes (2009). Under Rule 15, “[a] party may
amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). Plaintiff urges that this case is similar to Allegra Network
LLC v. Cormack, 2012 WL 6757244 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 3, 2012), where Magistrate
Judge Whalen found a compulsory counterclaim pled more than a year after an
answer to be untimely. Id. at *3-4. Unlike the defendants in Allegra, however,
Defendant here filed its counterclaim just thirteen days after filing its Answer -i.e., within Rule 15(a)(1)(A)’s 21-day window. Therefore, the Court will treat
Defendant’s Counterclaim as a timely amendment to Defendant’s Answer. See
also Greystone Nevada, LLC v. Anthem Highlands Cmty. Ass’n, 2013 WL
2319249, at *3 (D. Nev. May 28, 2013) (permitting defendants to add compulsory
counterclaims filed within 21-days after serving answer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
(15)(a)(1)(A)); Djourabchi v. Self, 240 F.R.D. 5, 10-11 (D.D.C. 2006) (similar); cf
Dixie Fuel Co. v. Straight Creek, LLC, 2011 WL 845828, at *3 (E.D. Ken. Mar. 8,
2011) (under Rule 15, a party may seek leave to amend a pleading to add a
compulsory counterclaim).
3
For all of the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Counterclaim
[Dkt. #15] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 8, 2014
s/Gerald E. Rosen
GERALD E. ROSEN
CHIEF, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys
of record on this date, January 8, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Richard Loury
In Absence of Julie Owens
Deputy Clerk and Case Manager,
313-234-5137
4
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?