Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc. v. Daimler Trucks North America LLC

Filing 116

Order granting 105 Defendant's Motion for reconsideration of the measure of damages in this matter. See order for details allowing 10 days for supplemental briefing. Judge John R. Adams on 4/29/19.(L,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Daimler Trucks North America LLC.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:16CV1959
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
(Resolves Docs. 105)

Pending before the Court is Defendant Daimler Trucks North America LLC’s motion for
reconsideration. Doc. 105. The motion is GRANTED.
In resolving Plaintiff Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc’s motion for summary
judgment, the Court noted as follows:
However, Daimler accurately asserts that the shortfall amount defined in the
contract contains no reference to the tires or pricing that would be used to calculate
the shortfall amount. “Even though one or more terms are left open a contract for
sale does not fail for indefiniteness if the parties have intended to make a contract
and there is a reasonably certain basis for giving an appropriate remedy.” Ohio
Rev. Code Ann. § 1302.07.
In this final respect, the Court finds that the parties’ course of dealings should serve
to resolve any indefiniteness surrounding the shortfall calculation. As such, rather
than Goodyear’s proposed calculation or Daimler’s proposed calculation, the Court
finds that a reasonable calculation should be based upon the actual purchases made
by Daimler. Accordingly, the shortfall amount for any quarter should be based
upon the average price paid by Daimler for the tires actually purchased during that
quarter.
Doc. 104 at 10 (footnotes omitted).

Daimler now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s

determination of the appropriate measure of damages.

Upon review, the Court agrees with the arguments contained Daimler’s motion for
reconsideration. Representatives for Goodyear conceded during deposition that Daimler could
satisfy its minimum purchase requirement through any combination or mix of tires. As such, if
the Court were to utilize its original decision, Goodyear’s liquidated damages would exceed the
minimum amounts Daimler would be obligated to purchase to remain in compliance with the
contract. As such, the Court revises its prior order. The Court shall calculate damages based upon
the least expensive tire offered under the parties’ contract. The motion for reconsideration is
GRANTED.
Unfortunately, it appears that the parties dispute the calculation even under this simplified
approach. Accordingly, with ten (10) days of this order, the parties may file any supplemental
brief they deem necessary to address Daimler’s argument regarding raw materials indices and
Goodyear’s argument involving which tire model constitutes the least expensive model. The
parties are not required to supplement their briefs but may do so if they so desire.
The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED as detailed herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: April 29, 2019

_/s/ John R Adams_______
JOHN R. ADAMS
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE