FRANCIS v. FIRSTENERGY CORP. et al
Filing
38
Supplement to 36 Memorandum Opinion & Order. Signed by Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 8/27/2015. (ten)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
) Civil Action No. 15-673
)
)
FIRSTENERGY CORP, as owner of
)
dissolved subsidiaries, MID-ATLANTIC
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and )
)
FE AEQUISITION CORP,
)
FIRSTENERGY GENERATION, LLC,
)
formerly known as FIRSTENERGY
)
GENERATION CORP.
)
)
Defendants.
)
MICHAEL S. FRANCIS,
SUPPLEMENT TO AUGUST 21, 2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION (ECF No. 36)
CONTI, Chief U.S. District Judge
This case was administratively closed on August 13, 2015, after this court granted
defendant FirstEnergy Corporation’s (“FirstEnergy”) motion to compel arbitration. (ECF No.
32.) Dissatisfied with that result, plaintiff Michael Francis (“Francis”) filed a motion for
reconsideration, which this court denied on August 21, 2015. (ECF Nos. 36-37.) On August 27,
2015, this court received a hand-delivered letter from Francis’ counsel asking this court to
“correct a misstatement of critical fact that was incorporated in the Court’s memorandum
opinion (Document #36).” Several hours later, FirstEnergy’s counsel hand-delivered a
responsive letter to the court.
As an initial matter, the parties are presumed to be aware that relief is properly
sought from this court only by way of motion. In this instance, however, because the issue is
isolated, and because no benefit is served by prolonging and expending further judicial resources
on this case, the court will address the matter raised by Francis’ counsel in his letter to the court.
In the letter, Francis objects to the following passage from this court’s August 21,
2015 memorandum opinion (ECF No. 36 at 4):
Francis fails to explain how this appraisal process has
become impossible, meaningless, or expensive because
FirstEnergy allegedly destroyed valuation documents. In
this regard, FirstEnergy notes in its opposition that Francis’
complaint in this matter includes an itemized list of the
Project Equipment, which was originally owned by Francis.
(ECF No. 35 at 3 & n.2.)
The document referred to at the end of this passage, i.e., ECF No. 35, is FirstEnergy’s response
in opposition to Francis’ motion for reconsideration. According to Francis, the court’s opinion is
“based on” and “incorporates” FirstEnergy’s erroneous factual statement that Francis originally
owned the Project Equipment. Francis’ letter states:
Mr. Francis never owned the Project Equipment. If he had,
it would then have been incumbent upon Mr. Francis to
maintain records of the equipment and the Defendants’
destruction of the Project Equipment records could very
well have been irrelevant. Rather, it has been, and will
continue to be, Mr. Francis’ central argument that it was
Defendants’ duty to maintain these records for precisely
this reason. That is the “point” of Mr. Francis’ lawsuit in
this Court.
In response to Francis’ letter, FirstEnergy explains that Francis owned all the
issued and outstanding shares of common stock of the corporation that owned the Project
Equipment, and it is that stock that FirstEnergy’s affiliate purchased from Francis. FirstEnergy
writes that “to state…that [Francis] ‘never owned the Project Equipment’ may be technically
2
correct, but to omit any mention of the fact that plaintiff was the sole owner of the entity which
did own the equipment is, at best, less than the whole story.”
Both parties misconstrue the court’s memorandum opinion. The opinion
explicitly attributes the assertion that Francis originally owned the Project Equipment to
FirstEnergy. FirstEnergy’s assertion follows, and is juxtaposed against, the court’s statement
that “Francis fails to explain how this appraisal process has become impossible, meaningless, or
expensive because FirstEnergy allegedly destroyed valuation documents.” (ECF No. 36 at 4.) In
other words, whereas Francis provided no specific reason why the appraisal process could not
proceed without valuation documents, FirstEnergy asserted that appraisal could proceed because
Francis, as the prior owner, would possess documentation about the Project Equipment.
This court repeated FirstEnergy’s assertion in order to note the distinction
between the parties’ positions. The court made no factual finding about who owned the Project
Equipment. The court’s ultimate ruling that this matter must be arbitrated was not based, in any
way, upon who owned the Project Equipment. To the extent that the opinion created any
genuine confusion, the court hereby clarifies that no determination was made with respect to
ownership of the Project Equipment in this case.
Date: August 27, 2015
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Joy Flowers Conti
Joy Flowers Conti
Chief United States District Judge
3
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?