Field Turf Builders, LLC et al v. Fieldturf USA, Inc. et al
Filing
131
OPINION & ORDER: I deny plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration 115 anddefendants motion for reconsideration 122 . See 5-page opinion & order attached. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
FIELD TURF BUILDERS, LLC, an
Oregon limited liability company; MARK
RYAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FIELDTURF USA, INC., a Florida
corporation; FIELDTURF TARKETT USA
HOLDINGS, INC., a foreign corporation;
JOE FIELDS; MICHAEL MCNEIL,
Defendants.
FIELDTURF USA, INC., a Florida
corporation,
Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
1 - OPINION & ORDER
No. 03:09-CV-671-HZ
OPINION & ORDER
v.
CRYSTAL RYAN, BOECKMAN
PROPERTIES, LLC, an Oregon limited
liability company, and GULF PACIFIC CO.,
an Oregon corporation,
Additional Counterclaim-Defendants.
S. Ward Greene
Charles R. Markley
Sean C. Currie
Greene & Markley, PC
1515 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97201
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jeffrey M Edelson
Stacy Owen
Markowitz Herbold Glade & Mehlhaf, PC
1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3000
Portland, OR 97204
Attorneys for Defendants
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Both plaintiffs and defendants move for reconsideration of this Court’s October 14, 2011
order, in which I issued rulings on the parties’ dispositive motions. I deny both motions.
BACKGROUND
Rulings on both parties’ motions for summary judgment issued on October 14th. Oct.
14, 2011 Opinion & Order (“10/14/11 Order”) (Dkt. #107). On October 21st, plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration of its dismissed breach of contract claim. Pls.’ Memo. in Supp. of
Mot. for Recons. (“FTB Mot. for Recons.”) (Dkt. #115). The breach of contract claim is based
on the allegation that defendants agreed to purchase Field Turf Builders for $2,150,000. Compl.
2 - OPINION & ORDER
¶58. This claim was pled as an alternative to claims three, four, five, and six. Id. Of these four
claims, only claim three (fraud/misrepresentation) was not dismissed in the October 14th order.
10/14/11 Order (Dkt. #107).
On November 16th, defendants also filed a motion for reconsideration of the same
October 14th order. Defendants assert that plaintiffs’ claim three for fraud/misrepresentation
should have been dismissed. Def.’s Memo. in Supp. of Mot. for Recons. (“FTUSA Mot. for
Recons.”) (Dkt. #122). Plaintiffs’ fraud claim involve allegations that defendants misrepresented
their intention to purchase Field Turf Builders. Compl. ¶¶31-34.
STANDARDS
A party may seek reconsideration of a ruling on a summary judgment motion under either
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The district court generally applies the same
analysis under both rules, and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Fidelity
Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Durga Ma Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing Rule
60(b)); Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1991) (discussing Rule 59(e)).
Three major grounds justify reconsideration: “the district court (1) is presented with newly
discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or
(3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d
1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Reconsideration is the exception; as the Ninth
Circuit has observed, reconsideration is warranted only by these and “[o]ther, highly unusual,
circumstances.” Id.
Rule 60(b) allows a court to correct a final judgment where the judgment was based on
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). However, the
3 - OPINION & ORDER
parties are limited to the arguments previously made and addressed by the court. A motion for
reconsideration “should not merely present arguments previously raised, or which could have
been raised in the initial . . . motion.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d
1111, 1130 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985)).
The decision to correct a judgment for mistake or inadvertence, whether made by a party or the
court, rests in the discretion of the trial court. Fidelity Fed. Bank, F.S.B., 387 F.3d at 1024.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs argue that its breach of contract claim should not have been dismissed. In the
October 14th order, I ruled that a contract existed, but that defendants were not obligated to
perform because approval by the board of directors, a condition precedent, never occurred.
10/14/11 Order, 16. Plaintiffs believe that this ruling was an error of law because defendants did
not present evidence that they sought board approval. FTB Mot. to Recons., 2-3. Defendants
counter that board of approval was just one condition precedent, and that several due diligence
items needed to be completed. Defs.’ Opp. to FTB Mot. to Recons. (“FTUSA Opp.”), 4.
Completing the due diligence items occurred in preparation for board approval. Def.’s Memo. in
Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J., 37 (“FTUSA worked diligently to finalize the potential deal. Mr.
Fields gathered information regarding [FTB] in order to meet with his boss . . . and eventually the
Tarkett Group board of directors.”) (emphasis added). In defendants’ summary judgment briefs,
there is ample evidence that defendants sought to complete due diligence so that board approval
could be obtained. Id. at 37-38. Plaintiffs have not raised any grounds to justify reconsideration
of the dismissed breach of contract claim.
In defendants’ motion for reconsideration, they argue that plaintiffs’
4 - OPINION & ORDER
fraud/misrepresentation claim should have been dismissed. FTUSA’s Mot. for Recons., 2.
Defendants argue that (1) the fraud claim is based on a nonmaterial element of the contract, (2)
the alleged misrepresentation was not directed to plaintiffs, and (3) plaintiffs did not present
evidence of reliance on the statement. Id. In the October 14th order, I drew reasonable
inferences in favor of plaintiff, the non-moving party, that statements related to the lease of the
Field Turf Builder’s location (the Boeckman facility) could show that defendants did not intend
to complete the purchase of Field Turf Builders. 10/14/11 Order, 8-9. As to the first argument,
defendants re-hash an issue that has already been briefed in their dispositive motion memoranda.
I do not see a basis to alter my ruling based on the facts as presented. As to defendants’ second
and third arguments, defendants do not present the court with newly discovered evidence or case
law; nor do they allege clear error or mistake. Furthermore, as stated earlier, a motion to
reconsider is not the proper vehicle to raise new arguments that could have been previously
presented in the original dispositive motion.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, I deny plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration [#115] and
defendants’ motion for reconsideration [#122].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this
16th
day of December, 2011.
/s/ Marco A. Hernandez
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge
5 - OPINION & ORDER
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?