Metso Minerals, INC. v. Powerscreen International Distribution Limited et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 759 Motion to Amend; For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Powerscreens motion to amend or correct the December 5, 2013 judgment granting Powerscreens motion for reimburse ment of the bond premium in the amount of $400,000. The motion is denied as untimely to the extent Powerscreen seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The motion is granted to the extent Powerscreen seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Th e Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the December 5, 2013 judgment to enter judgment in favor of Terex Corporation in an additional amount of $100,000, for a total of $500,000.So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 1/29/2014. (Coleman, Laurie)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
METSO MINERALS, INC.,
DISTRIBUTION LIMITED, now known as
TEREX GB LIMITED, TEREX
CORPORATION, POWERSCREEN NEW
YORK, INC. and EMERALD EQUIPMENT
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
277 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10172
Michael C. Stuart, Esq.
Marilyn Neiman, Esq.
Lisa Ferrari, Esq., Of Counsel
Lathrop & Gage LLP
Attorneys for the Defendants
950 17th Street, Suite 2400
Denver, CO 80202
Jon R. Trembath, Esq., Of Counsel
SPATT, District Judge.
This matter was tried before a jury from October 18 to December 6, 2010. On March 3,
2011, judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiff Metso Minerals Inc. (“Metso”). Following
certain post-trial proceedings, on August 18, 2011, the Defendants Powerscreen International
Distribution Limited, now known as Terex GB limited, Terex Corporation (“Terex”),
Powerscreen New York, Inc., and Emerald Equipment Systems, Inc. (collectively
“Powerscreen”) appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the
Court’s orders relating to a motion by Metso for injunctive relief.
On January 6, 2012, Powerscreen appealed to the Federal Circuit from the Court’s
judgment based on the jury verdict, and the orders regarding pre- and post-trial motions, and
other decisions and rulings affecting the questions of the validity and infringement of U.S. Patent
No. 5,577,618 (“the ‘618 patent”).
On June 22, 2012, this Court held a hearing regarding whether to stay all post-trial
proceedings as well as regarding the propriety and amount of a bond on appeal. Regarding a
bond, the following colloquy took place:
THE COURT: I don’t understand why a bond is not posted. I will find out. Why
isn’t a bond posted?
MR. TREMBATH: Your Honor, one wasn’t required. We are happy to post a
bond. Give us three weeks. We will post it for the $50 million, as proposed, with
a caveat that if the final judgment isn’t $50 million, we would like Metso to pay a
pro rata share of the cost of the bond. If that is okay with the court.
THE COURT: I’m sorry. You will post a bond for the whole $50 million and
MR. TREMBATH: If their judgment doesn’t total $50 million at the end of the
day, because we are operating on their number, we don’t think they get the $50
THE COURT: If not $50 million, they will pay back the amount of the bond.
MR. TREMBATH: The bond.
THE COURT: That is fair enough. What do you say about that?
MR. STUART: Well, first of all, they have looked at all our filing and they have
admitted at least $44 million. So we are talking about a difference of $6 million.
And I think that it is premature to make any sort of ruling on that or ask us to
agree to anything. After there is an appeal, then they can ask for costs based upon
whatever theories they have. Whatever the law is. I haven’t looked at what the
THE COURT: I am surprised. I guess I’m not understanding. Here they have
offered to put up a bond for the entire amount that you say is due, and all they say
is that if it is ultimately determined that that is not the amount you should collect,
you should pay them back for part of the bond, and you say no?
MR. STUART: You are talking about the cost of the bond?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. STUART: The difference. I haven’t looked at the law but my guess is that
we would be liable for that under -THE COURT: I’m not interested in whether you are liable.
MR. STUART: So I think yes. Yes.
THE COURT: They have made a very good suggestion.
MR. STUART: Yes. We will agree to that.
THE COURT: Bond for $50 million by July 13. You will send me a letter saying
you are  putting up the bond. And the only condition is, if it is ultimately
decided by the federal circuit or by this court that it is not the full $50 million, that
percentage-wise on the cost of the bond they will reimburse you.
(Trembath Decl., ¶ 4 & Ex. A, at 7-9.)
On June 25, 2012, the Court issued an order which provided, in pertinent
[A]s stated on the record on June 22, 2012, the Defendants shall file an appeal
bond in the amount of $50 million by July 16, 2012. If the Plaintiff does not
eventually recover this full amount, it shall be responsible for its pro rata share of
the cost of the bond.
On July 12, 2012, Powerscreen filed the bond. On August 3, 2012, the Court entered the
bond as an order:
Plaintiff has agreed that a bond in the amount of $50,000,000 will adequately
guarantee Plaintiff of full payment and that if the ultimate award granted is less
tha[n] $50,000,000, Plaintiff will reimburse Defendants for the cost of the bond
above the amount finally awarded.
Metso never appealed nor challenged the Court’s orders regarding the bond.
On May 14, 2013, the Federal Circuit concluded that the ‘618 patent was invalid and
reversed the judgment in favor of Metso. On August 9, 2013, the Federal Circuit denied Metso’s
motion for reconsideration. On August 16, 2013, the Federal Circuit entered its final Judgment
in favor of Powerscreen, and issued its Mandate. In doing so, the Federal Circuit
stated that “no costs” were awarded. Metso has indicated that it intends to appeal that
reversal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
On September 9, 2013, Powerscreen moved for (1) release of the bond and (2)
enforcement of the orders requiring Metso to reimburse Terex for the premium paid for
the bond, an amount that totaled $400,000.
On September 13, 2013, Terex paid an additional $100,000 to the surety for the quarterly
installment corresponding to the bond premium from July 6, 2013 through October 6, 2013, the
first quarter of the second year the bond was in place. Interestingly, the invoice was dated July
22, 2013, and stated that installment payment was “due upon receipt.” In addition, above the
remittance form to be sent to the surety along with a check were the typewritten words, “This is a
Reissued Invoice,” suggesting that Terex may have been delinquent in paying the installment
payment for the coverage period beginning on July 6, 2013.
Also, on September 13, 2013, Powerscreen filed a supplemental declaration, exhibits, and
an amended proposed order. The Supplemental Declaration stated that “[s]ince the filing of the
Motion” on September 9, 2013, Terex “[h]ad received an invoice from the bond surety in the
amount of $100,000.” (Trembath Decl, at ¶ 3.)
On September 23, 2013, Metso consented to Powerscreen’s request to rescind the bond,
but opposed that part of Powerscreen’s motion to recover the bond costs on behalf of Terex.
Metso acknowledged that Powerscreen sought $500,000 and generally disputed Powerscreen’s
entitlement to that amount. However, Metso did not specifically argue, as it does now, that the
additional $100,000 payment Terex made, almost one month after the Federal Circuit mandate,
was different in kind from the $400,000 in payments made prior to that mandate.
On November 27, 2013, the Court granted Powerscreen’s motion seeking reimbursement
in the amount of $400,000. The Court reasoned that Metso was “liable for its pro rata share,
100% of the cost of the appeal bond, $400,000.” However, the Court did not acknowledge that
Terex had paid the additional $100,000 quarterly bond premium and sought recovery of that
sum. On December 5, 2013, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment in favor of Terex in the
amount of $400,000.
On December 19, 2013, Powerscreen filed a letter motion and declaration with proof of
payment of the additional $100,000 Terex paid, seeking to correct the judgment to include the
full cost of the bond premium in an amount of $500,000. Metso opposed the letter motion.
On December 27, 2013, this Court denied Powerscreen’s letter motion without prejudice
as not compliant with Local Civil Rule 7.1.
On January 3, 2014, Powerscreen submitted a formal motion pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.) 59(e) or, in the alternative, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), seeking to
correct the judgment to reflect the additional $100,000 bond premium paid by Terex. Metso
opposes this motion. In particular, Metso faults Powerscreen for failing to seek release of the
bond immediately after the May 14, 2013 Federal Circuit order reversing the jury verdict. In this
regard, Metso contends that Powerscreen could have avoided this additional $100,000 payment
but failed to mitigate the cost of the bond. Powerscreen counters that the Federal Circuit
decision was not final until it issued its mandate on August 16, 2013, and that Powerscreen, in
fact, mitigated the cost of the bond “to the extent feasible by arranging for invoice of the annual
bond premium on a quarterly basis.” (Powerscreen Reply Mem., at 5.) Metso responds that,
even after the mandate was issued on August 16, 2013, Powerscreen did not move to release the
bond until September 9, 2013, at which time it did not mention the next quarterly installment
Terex was set to pay.
However, the Court need not address these arguments because, in its view, the omission
of the additional $100,000 payment in the November 27, 2013 decision constituted a “clerical
mistake” correctable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a).
As an initial matter though, the Court finds that to the extent Powerscreen seeks relief
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), Powerscreen’s motion is untimely. Courts have recognized three
major grounds justifying reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e): “an intervening change of
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.” Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255
(2d Cir. 1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). To invoke Rule 59(e) to alter or
amend a judgment, the moving party must move “no later than 28 days after entry of judgment.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); see also Local Civil Rule 6.3. Moreover, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), courts
may not extend the time for taking any action under Rule 59(e). Goldstein v. Hulihan, 09 CIV.
6824 CS (PED), 2012 WL 1438259, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2012), report and recommendation
adopted, 09-CV-6824 (CS)(PED), 2012 WL 1438251 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2012); see also Jackson
v. Crosby, 375 F.3d 1291, 1293 n. 5 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting that the additional 3 days provided
in Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), formerly Rule 6(e), “can never extend the time for filing a Rule 59(b) or
In this case, Powerscreen filed its procedurally-improper letter motion on December 19,
2013. The Court denied that motion without prejudice, giving Powerscreen a window of 14 days
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to file a formal motion (i.e., by January 2, 2014, or 28 days after the
December 5, 2013 judgment). Instead, Powerscreen filed its motion on January 3, 2014, 29 days
after the judgment.
Powerscreen contends that its December 19, 2013 letter motion was timely and therefore,
under the provision of Fed. R. Civ. 59(e), the Court may consider on the merits Powerscreen’s
otherwise untimely motion filed on January 3, 2014. However, as the Second Circuit has held,
“[a]ny interpretation of the rules permitting piecemeal filing, as [Powerscreen] advances here,
would allow parties to circumvent the purpose of Rule 60's time limits by filing incomplete
motion papers at the deadline.” Colucci v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 531 F. App'x 118, 120 (2d Cir.
2013); cf. Feldberg v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 463 F.3d 195, 197 (2d Cir. 2006) (“Permitting the
[plaintiffs] to supplant their timely yet insufficient ‘placeholder’ Rule 59(e) motion . . . with their
subsequent augmented filing . . . would afford them an easy way to circumvent Rule 60(b)' s
prohibition on granting an enlargement of time for filing motions under Rule 59(e).”).
Nonetheless, as noted above, the Court finds that relief is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(a), which “has no time limit.” Uni-Rty Corp. v. Guangdong Bldg. Fin., Inc., 95 CIV. 9432
(GBD), 2013 WL 150214, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2013). Rule 60(a) provides that a court “may
correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found
in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). “The decision to award
relief pursuant to Rule 60(a) rests within the sound discretion of the district court.” Peyser v.
Searle Blatt & Co., Ltd., 99 CIV. 10785 (WK), 2003 WL 1610772, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24,
The November 27, 2013 order makes clear that Metso is liable for its pro rata share,
100%, of the cost of the appeal bond, without any caveats as to the timing of the release of the
bond. In this regard, permitting Terex to recover the additional $100,000 premium payment does
not “provide a way for parties to relitigate matters already decided, to change errors in what a
court has deliberately done, or to attempt to establish a right to relief which the court has not
previously recognized.” L.I. Head Start Child Dev. Servs., Inc. v. Econ. Opportunity Comm'n of
Nassau Cnty., Inc., 00-CV-7394 (ADS), 2013 WL 3863892, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 25,
2013)(citations and quotation marks omitted)(Spatt, J.). Rather, the Court makes this correction
to reflect its “contemporaneous intent” at the time of the initial decision. Garvies Point Rd. Corp.
v. City of Glen Cove, 11-CV-0949 (JS)(WDW), 2012 WL 3288885, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10,
The Court emphasizes that the issue of the $100,000 premium payment was previously
before the Court, and Metso had the opportunity to, but did not argue, as it does now, that this
payment “stands in an entirely different category than the $400,000 award” in light of
Powerscreen’s alleged dilatory tactics with respect to the final bond premium payment. (Metso
Mem. in Opp., at 11.) In this regard, the Court finds that there were no unnecessary dilatory
tactics by Powerscreen in regard to the additional $100,000 bond payment.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Powerscreen’s
motion to amend or correct the December 5, 2013 judgment granting Powerscreen’s motion for
reimbursement of the bond premium in the amount of $400,000. The motion is denied as
untimely to the extent Powerscreen seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The motion is
granted to the extent Powerscreen seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). The Clerk of the
Court is directed to amend the December 5, 2013 judgment to enter judgment in favor of Terex
Corporation in an additional amount of $100,000, for a total of $500,000.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
January 29, 2014
Arthur D. Spatt
ARTHUR D. SPATT
United States District Judge
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?