ATSCO Holdings Corp. et al v. Air Tool Service Company et al
Filing
134
Opinion and Order. The Court grants Defendants' Joint 126 Motion for Judgment, in part, on Plaintiffs' Unjust Enrichment claim. The Court Orders Supplemental Briefs on the issues of the Consent Judgment and Remaining Claims to be filed with the Court no later than October 14, 2021. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 9/29/21.(S,HR)
Case: 1:15-cv-01586-CAB Doc #: 134 Filed: 09/29/21 1 of 13. PageID #: 5105
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ATSCO HOLDINGS CORP. ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
AIR TOOL SERVICE CO. ET AL.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.1:15CV1586
SENIOR JUDGE
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, SR. J:
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Joint Motion for Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and for a Judgment Finding Against Plaintiffs on their Amended Complaint.
(ECF # 126). For the following reasons, the Court grants, in part, Defendants’ Joint Motion and
orders additional briefing as described below.
The parties to the above action have requested, and the Court has agreed to determine the
claims in this case in a most unusual manner. The parties have requested that the Court make
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to determine the claims in this case entirely on a paper
record and without any evidence or testimony in open court unless the Court determines such
testimony is necessary. The parties have submitted deposition transcripts, videotapes of the
depositions and have submitted exhibits for the Court’s consideration. The parties have further
agreed that, should the Court find such presentation of the claims not well taken, Defendants
Case: 1:15-cv-01586-CAB Doc #: 134 Filed: 09/29/21 2 of 13. PageID #: 5106
will present their evidence with final arguments and/or briefing thereafter. It is on this exotic
procedural posture that the Court is requested to adjudicate the claims.
By way of background, according to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs ATSCO
Holdings Corp. and Hy-Tech Machine, Inc. are Delaware corporations with principal places of
business in Pennsylvania. Defendant Air Tool Service Co. is an Ohio corporation and Defendant
Rick Sabath, Air Tool Service Co.’s sole shareholder, is a North Carolina resident. The case is
here on the Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
The claims in this case arise out of an Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) executed on
August 13, 2014, wherein Plaintiffs purchased nearly all the assets of Defendant Air Tool for
$7,658,540. The purchase price was to be adjusted pursuant to a closing statement and working
capital adjustment. Pursuant to the agreement, $387,500 has been placed in escrow in
connection with the capital adjustments and to deal with any disputes.
According to Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief, Defendants made several representations and
warranties, including: 1) the financial statements were true and accurate; 2) there were no debts
or liabilities outside those reflected in the balance sheet or financial statements; 3) they were the
owners of all the Intellectual Property used in its business operations; 4) its inventories were
finished and saleable; and 5) it owned the assets listed in the agreement and these assets were
well maintained and in good working condition. After closing, Plaintiffs learned that these
representations and warranties were untrue.
Plaintiffs allege that certain grinders and grinder part inventories intended for a customer,
ATA, were non-saleable. These were valued at $93,313. Two tools manufactured for Michigan
Pneumatic were non-saleable. These were valued in the agreement at $13,000. Parts
2
Case: 1:15-cv-01586-CAB Doc #: 134 Filed: 09/29/21 3 of 13. PageID #: 5107
manufactured for a company, TorcUp, were defective. These were valued at $8,000. Other parts
and assemblies valued in the agreement at $90,000, were unusable or unrepairable.
Equipment sold to Plaintiffs also were in poor condition, causing loss to Plaintiffs. These
include a computerized numerical controlled manufacturing machine, the Okuma MacTurn, that
stopped functioning shortly after closing, costing Plaintiffs $32,714.36 to repair and will require
an additional $45,000 in parts and $30,000 in labor charges to make the machine operational.
Due to the Okuma’s break down, Plaintiffs have lost $100,000 in productivity. Without a
sufficient replacement, Plaintiffs cannot continue the manufacturing business, costing them an
additional $130,000.
Defendants further kept payments rightfully belonging to Plaintiffs in the
amount of $2,715.42.
Despite Defendants’ representations, third parties have disputed the ownership of certain
intellectual property sold by Defendants to Plaintiffs. There were also $20,000 in liabilities
owed to third parties that Defendants did not disclose in the balance sheet.
Plaintiffs further alleges $1,109.50 was paid to Defendant from a third party vendor when
that payment should have gone to Plaintiffs. The APA gives Plaintiffs a working capital
adjustment pursuant to a contractual formula. Under that formula, Plaintiffs allege they are
entitled to $100,928.
In addition, certain plans and drawings were found to be inaccurate or incomplete
resulting in damages of $127,250.
As a result, Plaintiffs allege Breach of Contract and Unjust Enrichment claims against
Defendants.
Defendants counterclaimed for the escrowed amount of $387,500, contending they made
3
Case: 1:15-cv-01586-CAB Doc #: 134 Filed: 09/29/21 4 of 13. PageID #: 5108
no false representations. According to Defendants, Plaintiffs had ample opportunity prior to
closing to inspect all inventory, equipment, balance sheets and accounts but failed to do so.
Defendants further allege Plaintiffs failed to take adequate steps to protect the assets and
inventory post-closing.
Defendants allege they complied with all contractual requirements, yet
Plaintiffs have breached the agreement by failing to release the escrowed funds.
Specifically, Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ failure under the terms of the APA to timely
complete an inventory and submit to Defendants an Inventory Acknowledgment precludes
recovery on any working capital adjustment.
Defendants further contend Plaintiffs stipulated to judgment on Defendants’
Counterclaim on the MacTurn Inefficiency and Work Performed Elsewhere claims and MacTurn
Maintenance. Also, Plaintiffs’ need, but do not, have expert witness testimony on their MacTurn
claims.
Defendants allege their contract with Plaintiffs contains a $75,000 indemnification
threshold such that Defendants are not liable for losses below the $75,000 threshold.
Lastly, Defendants allege they will prove at trial that Plaintiffs waived any contract
claims.
Defendants’ Motion
Defendants contend they are entitled to judgment on Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.
Regarding Plaintiffs’ contract claims, Defendants argue:
1) Plaintiffs’ breach of contract on the working capital adjustment agreement found in
Section 2.3 of the Asset Purchase Agreement is meritless because Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate by competent evidence that they complied with the prerequisites required under the
4
Case: 1:15-cv-01586-CAB Doc #: 134 Filed: 09/29/21 5 of 13. PageID #: 5109
APA to arrive at a working capital adjustment. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that
Defendants misrepresented the nature or quality of the inventory in question. Plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate they supplied an inventory roll-back account within twenty days of closing
per the express terms of the contract. Plaintiffs were required under the APA to provide an
Inventory Acknowledgment within twenty days of closing. They did not. Plaintiffs were further
required under the APA to utilize the method used to prepare the Audited Financial Statements.
They did not. Finally, Plaintiffs, per the APA, were required to comply “with the Seller’s past
practices, including giving effect to reasonable allowances for bad debt, Inventory shrinkage
and obsolescence, and reasonable reserves for customer returns, allowances and Rebates.”
(APA 2.3.2.2). Yet, Plaintiffs’ representatives did not even know what Defendants’/Sellers’
practices were so they clearly did not utilize them. Instead, they imposed their own practices
which were not authorized under the terms of the APA. As such, Plaintiffs failed to comply
with the required terms of the APA and Plaintiffs’ claim for working capital adjustments must
fail.
2) MacTurn
Inefficiency
and
Work
Performed
Elsewhere;
MacTurn
Maintenance and MacTurn Replacement
Defendants further argue Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate they are entitled to damages
arising from the alleged problems with the MacTurn machine. The MacTurn is a computer
numerical control (“CNC”) machine that acts as both a lathe and a mill. Upon purchase,
Plaintiffs had no in-house staff member who could diagnose or service issues with the machine.
Instead, Plaintiffs relied on an outside service professional. Plaintiffs principal, Patrick Curry,
testified on deposition that he was not capable of diagnosing what was or was not wrong with the
5
Case: 1:15-cv-01586-CAB Doc #: 134 Filed: 09/29/21 6 of 13. PageID #: 5110
MacTurn and could not say whether the transportation of the MacTurn from Ohio to
Pennsylvania caused any damage to the machine.
Plaintiffs failed to obtain expert testimony to prove the MacTurn was not in compliance
with the representations and warranties made in the APA at Section 3.17. Plaintiffs possessed
the MacTurn for five months before it began to operate erratically. The APA required that the
MacTurn operate as warrantied at the time of possession. There is no evidence that it did not
operate as warrantied at that time.
The APA further warrantied that Defendants maintained the MacTurn according to
industry standards, yet, Plaintiffs offer no evidence that Defendants’ maintenance fell below the
standard. Plaintiffs have offered no evidence of the industry standards. Finally, the APA
warrantied that the MacTurn would be suitable for use in business as currently conducted, yet
Plaintiffs offer no testimony on what the MacTurn’s use was and have admitted they possess no
knowledge of how Defendants conducted business at the time of the sale. Thus, their claim on
the MacTurn fails.
Waiver
According to Defendants, under the express terms of the APA Section 11.5(c), the parties
agreed that their sole remedies were as follows:
The parties acknowledge and agree that their sole and exclusive remedy with
respect to any and all Claims (other than Claims arising from fraud,
criminal activity or willful misconduct on the part of a party hereto in
connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement) for any breach
of any representation, warranty, covenant, agreement or obligation set forth
herein or otherwise relating to the subject matter of this Agreement, shall
be pursuant to the indemnification provisions set forth in this Article XI. In
furtherance of the foregoing, each party hereby waives, to the fullest extent
permitted under Law, any and all rights, Claims and causes of Action for any
breach of any representation, warranty, covenant, agreement or obligation set
6
Case: 1:15-cv-01586-CAB Doc #: 134 Filed: 09/29/21 7 of 13. PageID #: 5111
forth herein or otherwise relating to the subject matter of this Agreement it
may have against the other parties hereto and their Affiliates and each of
their respective Representatives arising under or based upon any Law, except
pursuant to the indemnification provisions set forth in this Article XI.
Because Plaintiffs never sought indemnification, they have waived any breach of contract
claims.
In summary, Defendants contend Plaintiffs cannot meet the elements of a breach of
contract claim. The parties both acknowledge a contract governed their respective obligations
but Plaintiffs cannot show they fulfilled their obligations as described above. Moreover, they
needed expert testimony on the MacTurn to show Defendants’ representations were inaccurate,
yet they only offer lay testimony of Plaintiffs’ employees who have no expertise on a MacTurn.
Plaintiffs have waived their breach of contract claims by failing to pursue their contractual
remedies under the Indemnification provision cited above. In addition, Plaintiffs have failed to
produce expert testimony on damages and therefore, they cannot show damages with any
reasonable certainty.
Perhaps more problematic is the fact that at the bench trial in 2020, Plaintiffs dismissed
certain claims and consented to judgment on Defendants’ own Breach of Contract counterclaim.
In doing so, Plaintiffs necessarily conceded that Defendants fulfilled their obligations under the
contract. Consequently, they cannot logically maintain their own breach of contract claim in
light of this consent.
Finally, where a contract exists, no claim for unjust enrichment may lie. Here, both
parties admit to the existence of a contract therefore, Defendants are entitled to judgment on
Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim.
7
Case: 1:15-cv-01586-CAB Doc #: 134 Filed: 09/29/21 8 of 13. PageID #: 5112
Plaintiffs’ Opposition
Plaintiffs allege they paid $7.600,000.00 to purchase substantially all the assets of
Defendants’ business via the APA. At Section 3.17 of the APA, Defendants represented and
warrantied that those assets were in good working order and were sufficient to operate the
business as Defendants had in the past. Based on the testimony of three witnesses, Plaintiffs can
show Defendants’ representations and warranties were not accurate.
The first witness, Joe Molino, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Plaintiffs’ parent company, P & F Industries, Inc., testified that Plaintiffs relied heavily on the
representations and warranties in the APA when purchasing the business in order to operate the
business as it was operated before the purchase.
The second witness, Jim Aloi, Vice-President of Finance for Plaintiff Hy-Tech, testified
that the purpose of their purchase of ATSCO was to get access to Defendants’ customers.
However, once operations started with ATSCO-purchased equipment, it was difficult to get
quality product from the equipment, in particular the MacTurn. That machine was regularly
unable to produce product and was in fact out of service for nearly four months. Aloi described
the expenses incurred to fix the MacTurn and further testified that Plaintiffs ultimately had to
purchase a new MacTurn for $330,000, as Defendants’ machine was unreliable.
Plaintiffs’ third witness is Patrick Curry, Hy-Techs Operations Manager. In that position,
Curry was responsible for the day-to-day operation of Hy-Techs business, including: quality
control, daily manufacturing, shipping and receiving and product development. Curry testified
that the MacTurn was purchased because it reduced certain steps in the manufacturing process as
it was both a lathe and milling machine. Yet, due to its problems, it failed to consistently
8
Case: 1:15-cv-01586-CAB Doc #: 134 Filed: 09/29/21 9 of 13. PageID #: 5113
produce product for six to eight months.
Plaintiffs oppose Defendants argument that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the
prerequisite obligations under the APA, arguing this exact issue was rejected by the Sixth Circuit
on appeal which held that Defendants’ failure to raise these defenses in their Answer, Motion to
Dismiss or Summary Judgment resulted in waiver of these procedural challenges.
Even if they could still raise this issue, the evidence presented shows Defendants failed to
engage in any pre-suit resolution as required by the APA, thus further militating against
Defendants’ argument.
According to Plaintiffs’ the APA holds that the warranties in the APA remain for twelve
months after the closing date. Therefore, Defendants argument that Plaintiffs cannot show the
equipment was defective and did not conform to the representations and warranties made in the
APA because they had it for five months is meritless.
Per the APA, Plaintiffs assert they do not need to prove why the MacTurn did not work,
they merely need to prove that it did not work as represented in the APA. This they have done
with the depositions of Curry and Aloi.
Lastly, Plaintiffs contend they accepted judgment on Defendants’ counterclaim because
they could not defend the claim based on the Court’s ruling which was subsequently overturned
by the Sixth Circuit.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Defendants move for judgment on partial findings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c),
which reads:
(c) Judgment on Partial Findings. If a party has been fully heard on an issue
during a nonjury trial and the court finds against the party on that issue, the court
9
Case: 1:15-cv-01586-CAB Doc #: 134 Filed: 09/29/21 10 of 13. PageID #: 5114
may enter judgment against the party on a claim or defense that, under the
controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on
that issue. The court may, however, decline to render any judgment until the close
of the evidence. A judgment on partial findings must be supported by findings of
fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52(a).
“In entering judgment under Rule 52(c), the court must set forth specific findings of fact that are
reviewed for clear error.” In re Mod. Plastics Corp., 732 F. App'x 379, 385 (6th Cir. 2018)
Sharp v. United States, 401 F.3d 440, 442 (6th Cir. 2005).
Unjust Enrichment
Defendants move for judgment on Plaintiffs’ Unjust Enrichment claim because neither
side denies the existence of a contract that governs the claims and relief sought in this case.
Both sides have claimed breach of the contract and argue for their respective positions based on
the same. Each parties’ Motion and Opposition brief are peppered with citations to and
arguments from the APA. When the subject matter of a claim is governed by a contract, a claim
for unjust enrichment on the same subject matter cannot lie. See Borden v. Antonelli Coll., 304
F. Supp. 3d 669, 678 (S.D. Ohio 2018) citing Davis & Tatera, Inc. v. Gray–Syracuse, Inc., 796
F.Supp. 1078, 1086 (S.D. Ohio 1992) (“In Ohio, [unjust enrichment] claims cannot be brought
where the subject matter of the claim[ ] is governed by a contract between the parties”)
(Kinneary, J.); Retirement Ctrs. of Am. v. St. Leonard Ctr., Case No. C–3–90–343, 1992 WL
1258517, at *9, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22744, at **33–34 (S.D. Ohio July 8, 1992) (“one may
not recover for unjust enrichment where an express contract between the parties covers the same
subject as the claim of unjust enrichment”).
Because the Court finds on the evidence and arguments before it that the APA governs
the subject matter of the parties’ dispute, Plaintiffs’ Unjust Enrichment claim fails and
10
Case: 1:15-cv-01586-CAB Doc #: 134 Filed: 09/29/21 11 of 13. PageID #: 5115
Defendants are entitled to judgment on the same.
Issues Requiring Additional Briefing
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their Breach of Contract claims
because Plaintiffs consented to judgment on Defendants’ Counterclaim for Breach of Contract.
Under Ohio law, “a plaintiff must present evidence on several elements to successfully prosecute
a breach of contract claim. Those elements include the existence of a contract, performance by
the plaintiff, breach by the defendant, and damage or loss to the plaintiff.” Kline v. Mortg. Elec.
Sec. Sys., 154 F. Supp. 3d 567, 603 (S.D. Ohio 2015), aff'd sub nom. Kline v. Mortg. Elec.
Registration Sys., Inc., 704 F. App'x 451 (6th Cir. 2017) Doner v. Snapp, 98 Ohio App.3d 597,
649 N.E.2d 42, 44 (1994). One of the elements requires proof that Plaintiff, or in this case,
Defendants, as they are the counterclaimant, performed their obligations under the contract.
According to Defendants, Plaintiffs cannot assert on one hand Defendants breached the contract,
while on the other hand consenting to judgment on the counterclaim which means they accepted
judgment that Defendants performed under the contract. This would result in a legal absurdity.
Plaintiffs respond that “the counterclaim judgment was on the state of permitted claims
and evidence. Plaintiffs could not at that time do anything to defend against the counterclaim
because, said with respect, the Court had wrongly (per the Sixth Circuit) prevented Plaintiff from
the introduction of evidence on the lion’s share of their claims. The reversal of that judgment
means that Plaintiffs necessarily now can and have defended against the counterclaim. To side
with Defendants on this issue is to give them the spoils of a victory that was facilitated only
through an evidentiary and legal error.”
11
Case: 1:15-cv-01586-CAB Doc #: 134 Filed: 09/29/21 12 of 13. PageID #: 5116
Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation and Agreed Order Regarding Trial at paragraph 12,
the Court may order additional arguments from counsel on any subject raised by the parties in
their filings. Therefore, the Court orders Supplemental Briefs of no more than ten pages on the
following issues:
!
Was the Consent Judgment itself or its legal effect on the Plaintiffs’ Breach of
Contract claims raised by either party or the Court of Appeals on appeal?
!
If so, what effect, if any, does the Sixth Circuit’s silence on the Consent Judgment
have on Plaintiffs’ Breach of Contract claims and the Consent Judgment?
!
If not, what effect, if any, does the failure to raise the issue have on Plaintiffs’
Breach of Contract Claims and the Consent Judgment?
Claims Remaining
According to Defendants, through dismissal, waiver or abandonment, Plaintiffs have the
following claims remaining: claim for Working Capital Adjustment and claims relating to the
MacTurn Machine. Plaintiffs do not disagree with Defendants’ identification of the claims
remaining in the case in their Opposition Brief, but Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief contains claims outside
those argued in Defendants’ Motion. The parties are ordered to include in their Supplemental
Brief whether there is a dispute on what claims remain, or do the parties agree that Defendants
have accurately represented the remaining claims in their Joint Motion?
The parties shall submit their Supplemental Briefs addressing the questions above to the
Court no later than October 14, 2021. The briefs shall not exceed ten pages.
Therefore, for the following reasons, the Court grants judgment for Defendants, in part,
on Plaintiffs’ Unjust Enrichment claim. The Court Orders Supplemental Briefs on the issues of
12
Case: 1:15-cv-01586-CAB Doc #: 134 Filed: 09/29/21 13 of 13. PageID #: 5117
the Consent Judgment and Remaining Claims to be filed with the Court no later than October 14,
2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
Senior United States District Judge
13
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?