Advanced Green Innovations v. Pi Innovo

Filing 15

ORDER (1) Denying Defendant's 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment Without Prejudice and (2) Staying Proceedings. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PI INNOVO, LLC,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-12835
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
ADVANCED GREEN
INNOVATIONS, LLC,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF #9) WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND (2) STAYING
PROCEEDINGS
On May 29, 2013, Pi Innovo, LLC (“Pi Innovo”) and Advanced Green
Innovations, LLC (“Advanced Green”) entered into a “Master Component
Development Agreement” (the “Agreement”), in which Pi Innovo agreed to create
and deliver technology services and products to Advanced Green. Currently, there
are two separate actions pending before the Court in which Pi Innovo and
Advanced Green have alleged breaches of the Agreement against one another.
(See Case Nos. 14-cv-14818 and 15-cv-12835.)
On December 19, 2014, Pi Innovo filed a Complaint against Advanced
Green (Case No. 14-cv-14818; hereinafter, the “First Action”) alleging that
Advanced Green failed to pay certain invoices issued pursuant to the Agreement.
1

(See First Action – Compl., ECF #1 at ¶¶ 8-9, Pg. ID 3.) Advanced Green failed to
respond to the Complaint, and on January 26, 2015, the Clerk of the Court entered
a default against Advanced Green. (See First Action – ECF #11.) Pi Innovo then
filed a motion for default judgment against Advanced Green on January 23, 2015.
(See First Action – Mot. for Default J., ECF #12 at 1, Pg. ID 140.) Advanced
Green did not file a written response to that motion. Instead, its counsel appeared
at a hearing on the motion on June 2, 2015, and stated on the record that Advanced
Green would not contest entry of a default judgment on liability.

However,

Advanced Green did wish to contest the amount of damages claimed by Pi Innovo.
On March 14, 2016, the Court entered an order granting Pi Innovo’s motion for a
default judgment on liability. (See First Action – ECF #33.) The parties continue
to litigate the amount of damages to be awarded under the default judgment. The
Court has not entered a final judgment in the First Action.
On August 11, 2015 – well after the Clerk of the Court entered the default
against Advanced Green in the First Action – Advanced Green filed its Complaint
against Pi Innovo in this action (Case No. 15-cv-12835; hereinafter, the “Second
Action”). (See Second Action – Compl., ECF #1.) Advanced Green alleges that Pi
Innovo breached the Agreement by failing to provide the “work and/or products
identified on [] three invoices” Pi Innovo submitted to Advanced Green for
payment.

(Id. at ¶ 9, Pg. ID 2.)

Advanced Green also included an unjust
2

enrichment claim in its Complaint.

(See id. at ¶¶ 19-27, Pg. ID 2-3.)

On

November 30, 2015, Pi Innovo filed a motion for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of Advanced Green’s claims in this action. (See Second Action, ECF
#9.)
Upon review of the Complaint in this action, the Court concludes that the
claims asserted by Advanced Green may well be compulsory counterclaims that
Advanced Green should have filed in the First Action. Indeed, Advanced Green
“does not dispute that the . . . claims in this case arise out of the same transaction
as the claims Pi [Innovo] brought against [Advanced Green]” in the First Action.
(See Second Action – Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., ECF #14 at 1, Pg. ID 143.) And if
Advanced Green’s claims in this action should have been asserted as compulsory
counterclaims in the First Action, then they may be barred by the entry of
judgment in the First Action.
For purposes of judicial efficiency, the Court will stay this action pending
entry of a final judgment in the First Action. At that time, the Court will determine
(1) whether Advanced Green’s claims in this action should have been asserted as
compulsory counterclaims in the First Action, and (2) whether the judgment
entered in the First Action precludes Advanced Green from asserting its claims
here. See Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1418 (3d ed. 1998)
(“Ideally, once a court becomes aware that an action on its docket involves a claim
3

that should be a compulsory counterclaim in another pending federal suit, it will
stay its own proceedings . . . .”); see also Inforizons, Inc. v. VED Software Servs.,
Inc., 204 F.R.D. 116, 120 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (staying potentially duplicative secondfiled action pending resolution of the first-filed action). The Court will also deny
without prejudice Pi Innovo’s pending motion for summary judgment and will
allow Pi Innovo to re-file that motion, if necessary, once the Court resolves the
issue concerning the possible preclusive effect of the judgment in the First Action.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons provided above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Pi Innovo’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment (Second Action – ECF
#9) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and
2. This action is STAYED until a final judgment is entered in the First Action.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 21, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on March 21, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]
4