MDT Services Group, LLC v. Cage Drywall, Inc.

Filing 97

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend Order of the Court, Docket No. 91 , is hereby DENIED. Defendants Emergency Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution, Docket No. 96 , is hereby GRANTED. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 12/2/2015. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
MDT SERVICES GROUP, LLC

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CAGE DRYWALL, INC.
Defendant.

No. 3:12-cv-01080
Judge Sharp

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Pending before the Court are Defendant Cage Drywall, Inc.’s Motion to Alter or Amend
Order of the Court (Docket No. 91) (“Motion to Alter”) and Defendant’s Emergency Motion to
Quash Writ of Execution (Docket No. 96) (“Motion to Quash”). For the reasons set forth below,
Defendant’s Motion to Alter will be denied but the Motion to Quash will be granted.
I.

Background

The Court declines to once again wade into the factual background of this case, on which
it has previously expounded at some length. (Docket Nos. 80, 88). Briefly stated, the Court
found in Plaintiff’s favor on the breach of contract claim and provided the parties with an
opportunity to settle the case before the Court ruled on damages. (Docket No. 81). After the
parties failed to reach a settlement, the Court awarded Plaintiff $112,945.55 in damages,
specifically $111,945.55 in lost profits and $1,000.00 for the cost of rehiring workers. (Docket
Nos. 88 at 8-9; 89). Defendant objected to that sum and asked the Court to reduce the award to
nominal damages in its Motion to Alter.

(Docket No. 91).

Plaintiff filed a Response in

Opposition (Docket No. 93), albeit outside the fourteen-day window provided for by Local Rule

1

7.01(b).1 Two months later, on November 19, 2015, Plaintiff obtained a Writ of Execution,
which was served on Defendant’s bank. Defendant asserts that because the Motion to Alter
remained pending on that date, the judgment was not final and could not be executed.
Accordingly, Defendant asks the Court to quash the writ. (Docket No. 96).
II.

Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment

The disposition of a motion filed pursuant to Rule 59(e), lies within the sound discretion
of the district court. Keweenaw Bay Indian Comty. v. United States, 940 F. Supp. 1139, 1140
(W.D. Mich. 1996) (citing Huff v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 675 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir.
1982)). “Rule 59(e) motions are generally granted when one of the following circumstances
arises: (1) because of an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) because evidence not
previously available has become available; or (3) necessity to correct a clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice.” Burt v. Zych, No. 10-CV-12099-BC, 2011 WL 3862337, at *1 (E.D.
Mich. Sept. 1, 2011) (citing Keweenaw Bay, 940 F. Supp. at 1141). The availability of Rule
59(e) relief is neither an invitation to, nor a vehicle for, relitigating previously considered issues.
Id.
Alas, Defendant’s Motion appears to be just that: an effort to relitigate issues previously
disposed of by the Court. Defendant makes absolutely no mention of an intervening change in
law or the availability of new evidence, leading the Court to conclude that Defendant seeks
amendment or alteration to remedy a perceived error of law. To that end, Defendant contends
that the evidence does not support the damages award and that Plaintiff was the first to breach
the contract. The Court has already thoroughly considered and rejected Defendant’s contention

1

Because the Court would deny Defendant’s Motion to Alter even in the absence of Plaintiff’s
opposition, the Court does not address whether the Motion to Alter must be treated as
unopposed.
2

regarding who breached first (Docket No. 80), and Defendant has presented absolutely no
persuasive authority that would lead the Court to reverse course at this juncture. The Court also
rejects Defendant’s assault on the carefully calculated award of damages. Although the Court
remarked upon the paucity of evidence proffered by Plaintiff, the Court’s decision made clear
that witness testimony and payroll records provided sufficient evidence to allow the Court to
determine the appropriate amount of damages due to Plaintiff. (Docket No. 88 at 7-9). Rather
than somehow refuting or discrediting this evidence, Defendant instead splices together portions
of the Court’s previous decisions in an attempt to paint a much direr picture of the record. As
trier of fact, the Court finds this tactic ineffective. Defendant fails to satisfy the Rule 59(e)
standard and thus has given the Court no reason to alter or amend the judgment.
III.

Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s effort to execute the judgment was inappropriate
because of the pending Motion to Alter. Without commenting on the propriety of Plaintiff’s
efforts to execute the judgment, the Court notes that the monetary amounts in Plaintiff’s Writ of
Execution make no sense. Plaintiff’s calculations simply do not add up and the Court cannot
allow execution in the face of such mathematical infirmities. The Court will therefore grant
Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Quash. However, because the Court today reaffirms its
previous judgment in Plaintiff’s favor, Plaintiff is free to seek execution for the proper amount.
IV.

Conclusion

Based on the above reasoning, Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend Order of the
Court, Docket No. 91, is hereby DENIED. Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Quash the Writ of
Execution, Docket No. 96, is hereby GRANTED.

3

It is SO ORDERED.

_______________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

4