Severstal Columbus, LLC v. Altech Environment USA Corp.
Filing
85
ORDER denying without prejudice 49 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 6/17/16. (jlm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
STEEL DYNAMICS COLUMBUS, LLC
V.
PLAINTIFF
NO. 1:14-CV-124-DMB-DAS
ALTECH ENVIRONMENT USA CORP.
DEFENDANT
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On June 30, 2014, Severstal Columbus, LLC (“Severstal”), now named Steel Dynamics
Columbus, LLC (“Steel Dynamics”),1 filed a complaint against Altech Environment USA Corp.
(“Altech”) in the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, Mississippi, asserting claims of negligence,
breach of contract, and breach of implied warranties regarding the purchase of two continuous
emissions monitoring units. Doc. #2. On August 4, 2014, Altech removed the state action to this
Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441, alleging an amount in controversy over $75,000.2
Doc. #1 at ¶ 5. On October 14, 2014, Steel Dynamics filed an amended complaint, adding
claims for breach of express warranty and contractual indemnification, and alleging incidental
and consequential damages stemming from defects in the purchased units. Doc. #13 at ¶¶ 13–17.
Before the Court is Altech’s “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of
Contractual Limitation of Remedies” filed November 6, 2015. Doc. #49. Altech limited its
motion to “how … provisions [in the parties’ purchase contract] limit recoverable damages.”
1
After Severstal commenced this action, and after Altech removed the action to this Court, Severstal amended its
name to Steel Dynamics Columbus, LLC. On October 2, 2014, Severstal filed an unopposed motion to change the
style of this case to reflect its new name, which United States Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders granted on
October 14, 2014. Doc. #11; Doc. #12.
2
Regarding subject matter jurisdiction, on May 31, 2016, and June 7, 2016, the Court ordered Altech to show cause
why this case should not be dismissed due to the absence of complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Doc. #73;
Doc. #75. In response, on June 3, 2016, and June 8, 2016, respectively, Altech filed motions for leave to amend the
jurisdictional allegations of its notice of removal. Doc. #74; Doc. #76. On June 14, 2016, the Court granted
Altech’s second motion to amend. Doc. #81. Attached to Altech’s second motion is indication that this Court has
jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). Altech filed a supplement to its notice of removal on June
16, 2016. Doc. #84.
Doc. #50 at 2. Steel Dynamics responded in opposition on December 9, 2015, and Altech replied
on January 8, 2016. Doc. #57; Doc. #58; Doc. #63. On May 27, 2016, this Court noticed the
case for a bench trial.3 Doc. #72.
A district court “has the discretion to deny a Rule 56 motion even if the movant otherwise
successfully carries its burden of proof if the judge has doubt as to the wisdom of terminating the
case before a full trial.”4 Black v. J.I. Case Co., 22 F.3d 568, 572 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Veillon
v. Expl. Servs., 876 F.2d 1197, 1200 (5th Cir. 1989)) (alteration removed). This discretion also
applies to motions for partial summary judgment. See Powell v. Radkins, 506 F.2d 763, 765 (5th
Cir. 1975) (court may deny partial summary judgment as to undisputed issue of material fact “for
the purpose of achieving a more orderly or expeditious handling of the entire litigation”);
Montfort Square Shopping Ctr., Ltd. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 3:10-CV-1673-D, 2012
WL 2358163, at *6 (N.D. Tex. June 21, 2012) (citing Rule 56(g) and 10B Charles Alan Wright &
Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2737 (3d ed. 1998)); Saint John’s African
Methodist Episcopal Church v. GuideOne Specialty Mut. Ins. Co., 902 F. Supp. 2d 783, 788
(E.D. Va. 2012).
With respect to Altech’s motion, this Court has considered the record before it, along with
the parties’ submissions on the motion, and concludes that the better course is for this case to
proceed to trial on all issues.5 All issues raised by the parties in their submissions on the partial
3
The plaintiff has never demanded a jury trial, even before this case was removed to this Court. Consequently, this
case was designated from the beginning as a non-jury trial case in the case management order, Doc. #19, and has
remained a non-jury trial case since then.
4
“[A]n interlocutory order denying summary judgment is not to be reviewed when final judgment adverse to the
movant is rendered on the basis of a full trial on the merits.” Blessey Marine Servs., Inc. v. Jeffboat, L.L.C., 771
F.3d 894, 897 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Black v. J.I. Case Co., 22 F.3d 568, 570 (5th Cir. 1994)); see In re Vioxx
Products Liab. Litig., 544 F. App’x 255, 259 n.5 (5th Cir. 2013) (applying rule in non-jury trial case).
5
Among other things, because the Court will issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in a judgment after a
bench trial in which liability is contested, a ruling on only the issue of damages beforehand would be inefficient and
expend needless time to resolve a matter that may ultimately turn out to be immaterial to the judgment. See Black,
2
summary judgment motion, including Altech’s assertion of a contractual limitation on damages,
will be considered at trial.6
Accordingly, Altech’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of contractual
limitation of remedies [49] is DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of June, 2016.
/s/ Debra M. Brown
.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22 F.3d at 572 (quoting Woods v. Robb, 171 F.2d 539, 541 (5th Cir. 1948)) (“The saving of time and expense is the
purpose to be attained by a summary judgment in a proper case ….”); Saint John’s, 902 F. Supp. at 788–89 (“The
Court will not address whether any of the alleged failures on the part of GuideOne constitute bad faith until after a
determination has been made on the issue of breach.”). Instead, in its discretion and as may be warranted, the Court
may consider during the bench trial a judgment on partial findings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c). Of note, the parties have
not represented to the Court that preparing for trial on the issue of damages in addition to the issue of liability
involves a substantial and distinct extra burden. Additionally, the Court prefers to consider the damages issue in
view of all facts to be presented at the bench trial rather than on just the motion record. See Virgil v. Time, Inc., 527
F.2d 1122, 1131 n.15 (9th Cir. 1975) (“Denial (as distinguished from grant) of summary judgment involves not only
pure questions of law; it involves as well an exercise of discretion upon the question whether decision should be
postponed until it can be founded on a more complete factual record.”).
6
On June 10, 2016, both parties filed trial briefs. Doc. #78; Doc. #79. Altech expressly incorporated by reference
into its trial brief its motion for partial summary judgment, and its memorandum and reply in support. Doc. #79 at
7–8. Likewise, Steel Dynamics expressly incorporated by reference its opposition to Altech’s motion into its trial
brief. Doc. #78 at 7.
3
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?