Rhode Island State Pier Properties, LLC et al v. Cargill, Inc.

Filing 28

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 24 Motion Supplement the Record. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 7/15/13. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CARGILL, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
RHODE ISLAND STATE PIER
PROPERTIES, LLC,

C.A. No. 12-198 S

ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, United States District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the
Record (ECF No. 24) following Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s Report
and

Recommendation

(the

“R&R,”

ECF

party’s motion for summary judgment.

No.

23)

regarding

each

The district court has

discretion over whether to accept additional evidence.

Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or
modify the recommended disposition [of the magistrate judge];
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.”).
record

with

attachments;
attachments.

(i)
and

an
(ii)

Plaintiff seeks to supplement the

Affidavit
an

of

Affidavit

Patrick
of

John

Conley,

with

Boyajian,

with

The Affidavit of Patrick Conley is designed to demonstrate
that the costs incurred by Plaintiff in developing its land were
substantially greater than the amount considered in the R&R and
caused

Plaintiff

to

lose

money

upon

sale

of

the

property.

Plaintiff asserts that the “balance of the equities” therefore
tips in its favor for purposes of its unjust enrichment claim.
However, Plaintiff fails to consider that the recommendation of
the R&R to grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was in
no

way

based

on

the

amount

expended

by

Plaintiff.

Rather,

“[Plaintiff’s] theory fails because it assumes that a property
owner may be liable for unjust enrichment whenever a neighbor,
acting

for

his

own

without

permission,

Without

deciding

the

benefit,

improves

that

his

of

merits

of

his

own

property
(R&R

neighbor.”

the

reasoning

and,
12.)

in

the

at

R&R

or

ruling on Plaintiff’s objection to it, the Court concludes that
the Affidavit of Patrick Conley is irrelevant to that analysis.
Therefore, the Motion to Supplement the Record with respect to
this Affidavit is denied.

Cf. Jasty v. Wright Med. Tech. Inc.,

528 F.3d 28, 34 (1st Cir. 2008) (ruling that the district court
did

not

evidence

abuse
in

its

discretion

connection

with

an

by

refusing

objection

to
to

consider
a

new

report

and

recommendation because the evidence was not probative of the
issue upon which the recommendation was based).

On

the

other

hand,

the

Court

will

allow

Plaintiff

supplement the record with the Affidavit of John Boyajian.

to
The

R&R recommended denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
because Judge Sullivan determined that a material issue remains
as to whether Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy
petition.

She reasoned that Defendant would have been required

to assert its claims against Plaintiff during the bankruptcy
proceedings if it had knowledge of such proceedings.
at 19-21.)

(See R&R

The Affidavit and its attachments provide evidence

that Defendant was, in fact, notified of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy.
Without necessarily being dispositive of the issue underlying
Judge

Sullivan’s

recommendation,

this

evidence

is

undeniably

relevant and is therefore admitted into the record of this case.
For

the

reasons

stated

above,

Plaintiff’s

Motion

to

Supplement the Record is GRANTED with respect to the Affidavit
of John Boyajian and DENIED with respect to the Affidavit of
Patrick Conley.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ William E. Smith
William E. Smith
United States District Judge
Date: July 15, 2013