RSG et al v. SIDUMP'R TRAILER

Filing 312

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs'/counter-defendants' motion to amend the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law (Filing No. 303 ) is denied. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TEL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
RSG, Inc., a South Dakota Corporation,
R GROUP, INC., an Iowa Corporation, and
RANDALL S. GOLDEN, an Individual,
Plaintiffs/
Counter-defendants,
v.
SIDUMP’R TRAILER COMPANY, INC., a
Delaware Corporation,
Defendant/
Counterclaimant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:06CV507

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court the motion of plaintiffs/counter-defendants RSG, Inc.,
R Group, Inc., and Randall S. Golden (hereinafter, collectively, “RSG”) to amend the
court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, Filing No. 303. RSG seeks additional
findings on its affirmative defense of equitable estoppel. It argues that the defense
provides an alternative ground for the court’s dismissal of Sidump’r’s fraud, breach of
warranty, and rescission counterclaims.
The defendants oppose the motion. They argue that RSG is trying to gain an
advantage in a separate litigation pending in this court, Gemini Investors III, L.P. et al v.
RSG, Inc., No 8:09CV105 (D. Neb.) (“Gemini v. RSG” or “the Gemini litigation”). In that
case, to avoid delaying the present action and the risk of multiple jury verdicts on similar
factual allegations, the parties entered into a stipulation agreeing to be bound by the
court’s judgment in the present case. See Gemini Investors III, L.P. et al v. RSG, Inc., No
8:09CV105, Filing No. 68, Stipulation.

This action was tried to the court and a jury from April 6, 2010, to April 16, 2010.
The court made several rulings at the close of evidence and RSG prevailed on the claims
that were submitted to the jury. The court later entered an order making detailed factual
findings and expressly stating that “[t]he court finds neither party is entitled to recover on
its equitable claims.” Filing No. 301, Order at 34. Equitable relief is generally appropriate
only in the absence of adequate legal relief. The court declines to revisit the issue.
Accordingly, the court finds RSG’s motion should be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’/counter-defendants’ motion to amend the court’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law (Filing No. 303) is denied.
DATED this 11th day of May, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/Joseph F. Bataillon
Chief District Judge

*This opinion m ay contain hyperlinks to other docum ents or W eb sites. The U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recom m end, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services
or products they provide on their W eb sites. Likewise, the court has no agreem ents with any of these third
parties or their W eb sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any
hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to som e other site does not affect
the opinion of the court.
2