Masco Cabinetry Middlefield, LLC et al v. CEFLA North America, Inc. et al

Filing 55

Opinion and Order. Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Judgment (Related doc # 47 ) is denied. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 2/4/2015. (H,CM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

MASCO CABINETRY MIDDLEFIELD )
LLC, et al.,
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CEFLA NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

CASE NO. 1:11CV2197
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
OPINION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:
This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion (ECF DKT #47) of Plaintiffs,
Masco Cabinetry Middlefield, LLC (“Masco”) and The Insurance Company of the State of
Pennsylvania, for Relief from Judgment. For following reasons, the Motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs alleged in their Amended Complaint that CEFLA North America and
CEFLA SC designed, manufactured and distributed a Group Roll Coat System, including a
“Cooling Tunnel,” which was later installed for use in the Masco facility in Middlefield,
Ohio. (ECF DKT #13, ¶10). A fire occurred within the Cooling Tunnel in October of 2009.
Plaintiffs sought to recover the $4,729,092.00 in damages resulting from the Cooling Tunnel
fire.
Defendants filed their initial Motion for Summary Judgment on June 7, 2013. (ECF
DKT #33). Plaintiffs filed their Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on
July 15, 2013. (ECF DKT #35). Defendants filed their Amended Motion for Summary
Judgment and Memorandum of Law on July 18, 2013. (ECF DKT #37-1). Defendants filed

their Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on July
25, 2013. (ECF DKT #38). Finally, after obtaining leave, Plaintiffs filed their Sur-Response
in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on August 12, 2013. (ECF
DKT #41).
Plaintiffs filed their Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on July 15, 2013.
(ECF DKT #36). Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on August 15, 2013. (ECF DKT #42). Plaintiffs filed their Reply in
Support of Their Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on August 23, 2013. (ECF
DKT #43).
On March 31, 2014, the Court granted Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion and
denied Plaintiffs’. Now, Plaintiffs move for relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1),
submitting that the Court’s decision contains legal and factual errors. Specifically, Plaintiffs
argue that CEFLA SC was not a signatory to the sales contract between Masco and Stiles
Machinery, Inc. for the Cooling Tunnel; so, CEFLA SC could not enforce the contract’s
terms. Also, Plaintiffs contend that the Court mistakenly referred to “CEFLA North America
and CEFLA SC interchangeably when in fact they are completely different companies
incorporated under different jurisdictions with different employees and different roles in this
case.” (ECF DKT #48 at 4).
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) provides: “On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a
party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)

-2-

allows a court to correct clear errors in a prior ruling. Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park, 226 F.3d
483, 490 (6th Cir.2000). “A claim of strictly legal error falls in the category of ‘mistake’
under Rule 60(b)(1).” Hopper v. Euclid Manor Nursing Home, Inc., 867 F.2d 291, 294 (6th
Cir.1989). However, “relief under Rule 60(b) is circumscribed by public policy favoring
finality of judgments and termination of litigation.” Info-Hold, Inc. v. Sound Merchandising,
Inc., 538 F.3d 448, 454 (6th Cir.2008), citing Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Trs. of UMWA
Combined Benefit Fund, 249 F.3d 519, 524 (6th Cir.2001). “Accordingly, the party seeking
relief under Rule 60(b) bears the burden of establishing the grounds for such relief by clear
and convincing evidence.” Info-Hold, 528 F.3d at 454. “The parties may not use a Rule
60(b) motion as a substitute for an appeal, ... , or as a technique to avoid the consequences of
decisions deliberately made yet later revealed to be unwise.” (internal citation omitted).
Hopper, 867 F.2d at 294; Federal’s, Inc. v. Edmonton Investment Co., 555 F.2d 577, 583 (6th
Cir.1977).
Plaintiffs insist that the Court was mistaken to refer to CEFLA SC and CEFLA North
America as CEFLA, and not to deal with them as separate, distinct entities. Plaintiffs cannot
complain about a distinction between CEFLA SC and CEFLA North America, because
Plaintiffs themselves repeatedly referred to both entities interchangeably. In fact, in their
Amended Complaint (ECF DKT #13), Plaintiffs allege:
¶3. Cefla North America is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cefla SC and is in
the business of designing, manufacturing and/or distributing certain industrial
manufacturing equipment used in the manufacture of, among other things,
cabinetry for use in the residential home industry.

¶4. Defendant Cefla SC is an Italian corporation with its principal place of
business in Imola, Italy. Cefla SC is in the business of designing,
-3-

manufacturing and/or distributing certain industrial manufacturing equipment
used in the manufacture of, among other things, cabinetry for use in the
residential home industry.

¶9. Prior to January 26, 2004, Cefla North America and Cefla SC visited and
inspected Masco Cabinetry’s plant in Middlefield, Ohio for the purpose of
designing, manufacturing and distributing certain machinery to Masco
Cabinetry known as a Cefla Group Roll Coat System.

¶10. Thereafter, Cefla North America and Cefla SC designed, manufactured
and distributed a Group Roll Coat System, including certain equipment known
as a “Cooling Tunnel,” which was subsequently installed for use at Masco
Cabinetry’s facility in Middlefield, Ohio.
The Amended Complaint goes on to assert two Counts against Cefla North America
and Cefla SC, and prays for judgment “against Defendants, and each of them, in the full
amount of Plaintiff’s provable damages.” (ECF DKT #13 at 3-7).
Even in the briefing on the Motions for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs did not
distinguish between the Defendants. For example, in Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment: “Defendants are collectively referred to in this Response as
“the Cefla entities.” (ECF DKT #35 at 3).
The second aspect of Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b)(1) Motion is their dispute with the Court’s
holding that CEFLA SC as well as CEFLA North America could enforce the Sales Agreement
for the Cooling Tunnel installed in their facility. The Sales Agreement unquestionably
incorporates the Proposal, prepared by CEFLA North America for KraftMaid Cabinetry and
designated by its Number: CE-3227C and date of January 26, 2004. The Proposal references
the shipment of equipment from Italy and that CEFLA North America would not be obligated
for customs delays. A handwritten note on the Sales Agreement form recites: “Note:

-4-

Includes two round trip tickets and expenses to Cefla, Italy.” Furthermore, as the Court
outlined in its Opinion and Order, the Stiles-CEFLA Terms and Conditions are part of the
Sales Agreement. Below the signatures of the parties, in bold capital letters, it says: “YOUR
ORDER IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS PRINTED ON THE
REVERSE SIDE.”
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the Court made a clear legal error or factual
mistake. The Court had sufficient evidence in the record to hold that both CEFLA entities
could enforce the Sales Agreement, which contemplated that the Cooling Tunnel was
manufactured by CEFLA SC in Italy, shipped to the Middlefield facility and installed by
CEFLA North America, and which specifically incorporated the CEFLA-Stiles Terms and
Conditions. The Court declines to revisit its summary judgment analysis. Rather, Plaintiffs
must live with the litigation decisions they made and may avail themselves of their appellate
remedies.
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF DKT #47) for Relief from Judgment,
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge
Dated: February 4, 2015

-5-