Integrity Energy, Ltd. v. Hunter et al
Filing
271
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendants' Motion for Clarification of the Court's 251 Memorandum Opinion and Order (Related Doc # 264 ). Judge Donald C. Nugent on 8/25/2021. (M,S)
Case: 1:18-cv-00978-DCN Doc #: 271 Filed: 08/25/21 1 of 3. PageID #: 9491
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
INTEGRITY ENERGY,LTD.,
CASE NO.: 1:18-CV-00978
Plaintiff,
JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
V.
JERRAN HUNTER,et al.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants, Jerran Hunter ("Mr. Hunter"), Amber A.
Acoff("Ms. Acoff), and I.P.O. Washington Group LLC d/b/a Complete Business Solutions'
("CBS") (collectively, "Defendants") Motion for Clarification of the Court's July 6, 2021
Memorandum Opinion and Order (the "July 6, 2021 Order" ECF #251).(EOF #264). Plaintiff,
Integrity Energy, Ltd. ("Plaintiff or "Integrity") filed a Brief in Opposition (ECF #267) and
Defendants filed a Reply in Support.(ECF #269). For the reasons that follow. Defendants' Motion
for Clarification is DENIED.(ECF #264).
Defendants seek clarification of the Court's July 6, 2021 Order awarding Plaintiff
$4,350,886.54 in damages, including enterprise value and compensatory damages, and ordering
Defendants, including Consumers Energy Bureau("CEB"),to direct all revenue to Integrity until
the full damages award is satisfied.(ECF #251). Defendants seek clarification on two grounds:
first. Defendants request that only CBS and CEB be held liable for the damages, and not Mr.
Hunter or Ms. Acoff in their personal capacities; and second. Defendants request that the Court
revise its award to require CBS and CEB direct only its profits, rather than its revenue, to satisfy
the award so that Defendants may continue operation of its business.
1
Case: 1:18-cv-00978-DCN Doc #: 271 Filed: 08/25/21 2 of 3. PageID #: 9492
Defendants cite no persuasive legal authority in support of its request for clarification or
modification, and its arguments are not well taken. Mr. Hunter and Ms. Acoff, with the assistance
of counsel, negotiated and agreed to the terms of the parties' Settlement Agreement (the
"Agreement"), which defines Defendants to include Mr. Hunter and Ms. Acoff, and places certain
acknowledgments and affirmative obligations upon them as individuals.(ECF #14). Defendants
argue that Mr. Hunter and Ms. Acoff acted only as agents of CBS,and thus Plaintiff should not be
permitted to pierce the corporate veil in order to satisfy its judgment with the parties' personal
assets.
However, both Mr. Hunter and Ms. Acoff signed the Agreement on behalf ofthemselves,
and Defendants make no argument that the parties did not understand the terms to which they
personally agreed or that the terms should now be found invalid. The Court is aware of Mr.
Hunter's passing and Ms. Acoffs present situation, but Counsel for Defendants does not
demonstrate how these circumstances support revision ofthe clear language ofthe Court's July 6,
2021 Order or excuse the parties from liability. With respect to Ms. Acoff,the Court finds that her
financial liability should be limited to the Ohio sade, in the amount of$1,731.00.
Pursuant to the July 6, 2021 Order, the Court thoroughly reviewed the evidence in this
matter and found Defendants in violation of a number ofthe Agreement's provisions. As a result
of these breaches, the evidence demonstrated Defendants experienced significant economic
growth. Defendants now argue, without docmnentation,that they have limited assets and financial
resources, and the Court's Order should be modified to require that only its profits, rather than its
revenue, be directed to Plaintiffto satisfy the judgment.
The Court finds no compelling reason to modify its award ordering Defendants' revenue
be directed to Integrity until the damages award is paid in full. Despite over two years ofdiscovery.
Case: 1:18-cv-00978-DCN Doc #: 271 Filed: 08/25/21 3 of 3. PageID #: 9493
and as discussed in great detail in the Court's Order, Defendants failed to provide the Court with
a comprehensive assessment of its fmancials and did not refute, contradict, or explain its notable
financial growth. Defendants now argue that modification of the Order is necessary, or else CBS
and CEB will be forced to eease operations because it will be without the neeessary funds to pay
employees or business expenses, ineluding protecting its legal rights. Defendants' position,
however, is not supported by any doeumentation evidencing financial hardship or any legal
authority, and thus the Court finds no reason to disturb its July 6, 2021 Order.
For the reasons set forth above. Defendants' Motion for Clarification of the Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order is DENIED.(EOF #264).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONALD C.'NUGEN/^
Senior United States I^trict Judge
DATED:
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?