Gonzalez Production Systems, Inc. v. Martinrea International Inc.

Filing 296

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTSMOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 288 AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

GONZALEZ PRODUCTION SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-cv-11544

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

MARTINREA INTERNATIONAL INC., and
MARTINREA HEAVY STAMPINGS INC.,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
R. STEVEN WHALEN

Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT [288]
AS MOOT
I. INTRODUCTION
Gonzalez Production Systems, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action on April 4, 2013
against Martinrea International Inc., and Martinrea Heavy Stamping, Inc. (“Defendants”). See
Dkt. No. 1. The case was tried by a jury and a verdict was issued on October 22, 2015. See Dkt.
No. 267. Before the Court now is Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Judgment. See Dkt. No. 288.
For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will DENY the Motion as MOOT.
II. BACKGROUND
A jury rendered a verdict on this case on October 22, 2015. See Dkt. No. 267. In the
Special Verdict, the jury found that both Plaintiff and the Defendants were in breach of their
contract. Id. (Pg. ID No. 8863). The jury found that Plaintiff owed $5,665,564.74 to Defendants.
Id. The Defendants, on the other hand, were found to only owe $3,650,765.89 to Plaintiff. Id.at 2
(Pg. ID No. 8864). The net difference is $2,014,798.85 to be paid to the Defendants.

-1-

On October 29, 2015, Defendants prepared a judgment and requested Plaintiff’s approval
for joint submission to the Court for entry. Dkt. No. 288 at 2 (Pg. ID No. 12464); see also Def.
Exhibit B. The next day, Plaintiff refused to jointly present the proposed judgment for four
reasons:
[1] Martinrea’s 10-29-15 proposed Judgment omits any reference to the jury’s
verdicts on the various counts and improperly references only a “net” judgment
amount.
[2] Martinrea’s 10-29-15 proposed Judgment does not reflect the jury’s finding
that “Martinrea made a promise to pay Gonzalez for one or more items that were
not addressed in the parties’ contract.”
[3] Martinrea’s 10-29-15 proposed Judgment does not explicitly refer to the setoff between the jury’s two damages awards.
[4] Martinrea’s 10-29-15 proposed Judgment improperly awards costs to
Martinrea.
[5] Martinrea’s 10-29-15 proposed Judgment refers to “post-judgment interest as
allowed by law.” Gonzalez would like it specified that post-judgment interest
accrues “at the rate and in the manner provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1961” so that any
further disputes about what law applies to computation of post-judgment interest
can be obviated.
[6] With regard to the computation of pre-judgment interest, Gonzalez recomputed the interest calculations and arrived at figures that were lower than
those included in Martinrea’s 10-29-15 proposed Judgment.
See Def. Exhibit D.
On November 5, 2015 counsel for the parties participated in a conference call where
counsel for Plaintiff revealed that the pre-judgment interest calculation was $52.59 lower than
Defendants’. Dkt. No. 288 at 4 (Pg. ID No. 12466). Defendants agreed to reduce its prejudgment interest calculation by $52.59. Id. Additionally, Defendants agreed to stipulate to
Plaintiff’s request that the judgment specify that post-judgment interest accrue “at the rate and in

-2-

the manner provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1961.” Id. Defendants further agreed to revise its proposed
judgment to state “without costs to any party.” Id. at 5 (Pg. ID No. 12467).
Despite Defendants’ concessions, the parties were still unable to reach an agreement on a
Judgment form.
III. DISCUSSION
The lone issue before the court is the language to be included in the Judgment. Plaintiff
seeks to include language referencing the Jury’s findings on specific claims. See Dkt. No. 290 at
6–7 (Pg. ID No. 12533). Defendants argue that to reference the verdict forms would violate Rule
58.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 reads that “[e]very judgment and amended judgment
must be set out in a separate document.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. “This rule was ‘intended to avoid the
inequities that were inherent when a party appealed from a document or docket entry that
appeared to be a final judgment of the district court only to have the appellate court announce
later that an earlier document or entry had been the judgment and dismiss the appeal as
untimely.’ ” Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N2G Distributing, Inc., 763 F.3d 524, 543 (6th Cir.
2014) (quoting Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381, 385 (1978)).
A judgment should “be a self-contained document, saying who has won and what relief
has been awarded, but omitting the reasons for this disposition, which should appear in the
court’s opinion.” Otis v. City of Chicago, 29 F.3d 1159, 1163 (7th Cir. 1994); see also Dudley ex
rel. Estate of Patton v. Penn-America Ins. Co., 313 F.3d 662, 670 (2nd Cir. 2002) (“Consistent
with this view, I believe the separate-document rule requires that one be able to discern the
elements of a final, appealable judgment from the face of the separate document (labeled
“Judgment”), without reference to any court papers or pleadings.”).

-3-

Some courts however, have held that to include legal reasoning in a judgment would not
violate Rule 58, but only as long as the included reasoning was sparse. See Kidd v. District of
Columbia, 206 F.3d 35, 39 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (“Our decision in Diamond itself endorses decisions
of other circuits allowing inclusion of at least one citation to legal authority and at least a onesentence explanation of the court's reasoning. We said that ‘at some point, the inclusion of legal
reasoning and authority makes an order into a combined decision and order,’ confirming that
some explanation is acceptable—so long as it is very sparse.”) (quoting Diamond by Diamond v.
McKenzie, 770 F.2d 225, 230 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted)). It does not appear the Sixth
Circuit has had cause to weigh in on this topic.
Neither proposed judgment brought by the parties runs afoul of these principles.
However, the Court will fashion its own judgment for the parties.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will enter its own Judgment, and DENY
Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Judgment as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2016
Detroit, MI

/s/Gershwin A Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge

-4-