Cashman Equip. Corp. v. Cardi Corp.
| Docket Number | C. A. PB-2011-2488 |
| Decision Date | 21 July 2023 |
| Parties | CASHMAN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, INC. Plaintiff, v. CARDI CORPORATION, INC.; SAFECO INSURANCE CO., INC.; RT GROUP, INC.; JAMES RUSSELL; STEVEN OTTEN; CARDI MATERIALS, LLC; SPECIALTY DIVING SERVICES, INC.; HALEY & ALDRICH, INC., Defendants, v. WESTERN SURETY COMPANY; RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Third-Party Defendants. |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
Cashman Equipment Corporation, Inc.; Western Surety Company • Michael A. Kelly, Esq.
Cardi Corporation, Inc.; Safeco Insurance Co., Inc. Cardi Materials, LLC • Jeremy Ritzenberg, Esq.
RT Group, Inc.; James Russell; Steven Otten • Mark P Dolan, Esq.
Specialty Diving Services, Inc. • Moshe S. Berman, Esq. • William M. Russo, Esq., • Lauren E. Jones, Esq.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc. • Brian C. Newberry, Esq.
State, Department of Transportation • Myles C. Beltram, Esq., • Maxford O. Foster, Esq.
Before this Court for decision is Plaintiff Cashman Equipment Corporation, Inc.'s (Cashman) Motion to Vacate this Court's February 15, 2023 final judgment in favor of Defendant Specialty Diving Services, Inc. (SDS). Jurisdiction is pursuant to Rule 60 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.
This Court's February 18, 2022 Decision summarizes the underlying facts relevant to the instant Motion. See Cashman Equipment Corp., Inc. v. Cardi Corp., Inc., No. PB-2011-2488, 2022 WL 577873, at *1-3 (R.I. Super. Feb. 18, 2022). To restate briefly, this suit originated in 2011 relating to disputes between various business entities engaged on a public works construction project to replace the Sakonnet River Bridge (the Project). See generally Cashman Fifth Am. Compl. 1. Cashman worked as a subcontractor to the Project's prime contractor, Cardi Corporation, and was responsible for substructure construction. Id. ¶¶ 14-15, 18; Cardi Corp.'s Nov. 10, 2021 Am. Answer ¶¶ 14-15, 18. Cashman, in turn, contracted with SDS to perform certain underwater work relating to marine cofferdam installation. (Cashman's Fifth Am. Compl. ¶¶ 135, 451; SDS's Answer to Fifth Am. Compl. ¶¶ 135, 451.) "The design and construction of marine cofferdams were 'key portion[s]' of the Project." Cashman Equipment Corp., Inc., 2022 WL 577873, at *1 n.1 (quoting Cashman Equipment Corp., Inc. v. Cardi Corp., Inc., No. PB-2011-2488, 2021 WL 4398192, at *2 (R.I. Super. Sept. 20, 2021)).
Cardi identified alleged deficiencies in the cofferdam installation, requiring substantial repairs, and sought to hold Cashman liable for the additional work. Cashman asserted breach of contract, indemnification, and contribution claims against SDS, on the grounds that, if Cardi's allegations were true, SDS was liable for having failed to "construct the underwater components and tremie floor in accordance with the approved plans" and having "fail[ed] to notify [Cashman] of obvious underwater deficiencies[.]" (Cashman's Fifth Am. Compl. ¶ 457.)
Cashman presented its case-in-chief in a non-jury trial before this Court, after which SDS moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 52(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. See Cashman Equipment Corp., Inc., 2022 WL 577873, at *2. This Court granted SDS's motion, finding that Cashman had "failed to establish that SDS had breached any obligations owed to Cashman, and SDS was entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.]" Id.
Subsequently, SDS filed a Motion for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Recovery of Costs. (Def. SDS's Mot. for an Award of Att'ys' Fees &Recovery of Costs 1.) In its memorandum accompanying that motion, SDS argued for attorneys' fees and costs, but not interest. See generally Def. SDS's Mem. of Law in Supp. of its Mot. for an Award of Att'ys' Fees &Recovery of Costs. The Court granted the motion, and on June 11, 2021, Cashman and SDS filed a joint stipulation as to the reasonableness of the fees and costs sought by SDS; specifically, $110,507.75 in pretrial fees and $114,163.39 in trial fees, totaling $224,671.14. (Order (Sept. 14, 2020); Joint Stip. Re: Reasonableness of Att'ys' Fees &Costs ¶ 1.) The joint stipulation made no reference to interest. See generally Joint Stip. Re: Reasonableness of Att'ys' Fees &Costs. On August 6, 2021, this Court entered an Order awarding SDS fees and costs in the total amount stipulated. (Order (Aug. 6, 2021) 1.)
On August 16, 2021, SDS moved for entry of final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. (Def. SDS's Mot. for Final J. 1.) That motion acknowledged that SDS was entitled to "costs and fees in the amount of $224,671.14"-again, no reference to interest. Id. ¶ 2. The Court declined, however, to enter final judgment for SDS until the suit was completely and finally resolved because "Cashman's claims against SDS implicated many of the same factual issues at the heart of Cashman and Cardi's dispute" and because multiple issues remained to be adjudicated as between Cardi, Cashman, and other remaining parties to the underlying suit. See Cashman Equipment Corp., Inc., 2022 WL 577873, at *8-9.
On November 4, 2022, SDS renewed its motion for final judgment, which this Court granted on February 8, 2023. (Def. SDS's Renewed Mot. for Final J.; Feb. 8, 2023 Hr'g on Mot. to Enter Final J.) SDS attached a "proposed form of Final Judgment" to its renewed motion that, in its entirety, read:
During a February hearing on SDS's renewed motion, there was, once again, no discussion as to pre- or post-judgment interest. See generally Mot. to Vacate Ex. 4 (Hr'g Tr.).
On February 15, 2023, the Court entered an Order of Final Judgment as prepared and submitted by SDS counsel, which read in its entirety:
On March 2, 2023, Cashman filed a notice of appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, challenging this Court's decision to grant judgment as a matter of law in favor of SDS. (Notice of Appeal.)
On March 30, 2023, Cashman filed the instant Motion to Vacate Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b),[1] arguing that (1) the Court's Order of Final Judgment materially differed from the final judgment order proposed in SDS's renewed motion for final judgment by including prejudgment interest not previously sought, and (2) "SDS is not entitled to pre- or post-judgment interest because an award of attorneys' fees and costs does not constitute 'pecuniary damages' under Rhode Island's pre-judgment interest statute." (Mot. to Vacate 1.) The Supreme Court then issued an interim remand order directing this Court to consider and rule on Cashman's Motion to Vacate. (Order, No. 2023-154-A (June 12, 2023).)
Shortly thereafter, the parties submitted supplemental briefing to this Court on the applicability of Rule 60(a)[2] and the relevance of our Supreme Court's related holdings and reasoning in Ankner v. Napolitano, 764 A.2d 712 (R.I. 2001) and DiLuglio v. Providence Auto Body, Inc., 755 A.2d 757 (R.I. 2000). See generally Def. SDS's Suppl. Br. Re: R.I. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 60(a); Cashman Equipment Corp, Inc.'s Suppl. Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Vacate Final J.
"'It is well settled that a motion to vacate a judgment is left to the sound discretion of the trial justice[.]"' Atmed Treatment Center, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Company, 285 A.3d 352, 359 (R.I. 2022) (quoting Renewable Resources, Inc. v. Town of Westerly, 110 A.3d 1166, 1171 (R.I. 2015)).
Rule 60(b)(1) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . [m]istake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." (Super. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).) Separately, Rule 60(b)(6) offers relief for "[a]ny other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." (Super. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6).) "It is perhaps an understatement to say that Rule 60(b)(6) rarely is invoked with success." McLaughlin v. Zoning Board of Review of Town of Tiverton, 186 A.3d 597, 609 (R.I. 2018). "Rule 60(b)(6) was 'not intended to constitute a catchall and . . . circumstances must be extraordinary to justify relief.'" Id. (quoting Allen v. South County Hospital, 945 A.2d 289, 297 (R.I. 2008)).
Rule 60(a) allows the Court to correct "[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission . . . at any time of...
To continue reading
Request your trial