Cranpark, Inc. v. Rogers Grp., Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | CASE NUMBER: 4:04CV1817 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
| Parties | CRANPARK, INC., Plaintiff, v. ROGERS GROUP, INC., Defendant. |
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Rogers Group, Inc.'s ("Defendant") Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and its alternative Motion for a New Trial filed pursuant to Rules 50(b) and 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF Dkt. #s 218, 219. In its Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Defendant renews its contention that Plaintiff Cranpark, Inc. ("Plaintiff") lacks constitutional standing to sustain its promissory estoppel claim and also asserts that James Sabatine engaged in illegal activity which rendered any promise or contract made by Defendant unenforceable. ECF Dkt. #218. As a result, Defendant argues that the Court must set aside the jury's verdict and enter judgment in favor of Defendant. Id. Alternatively, in its Motion for a New Trial, Defendant contends that it is entitled to a new trial since the evidence does not support Plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim and Plaintiff's damages award lacks legal basis and is unsupported by the evidence. ECF Dkt. #219 at 1. Plaintiff filed briefs in opposition to Defendant's motions and Defendant filed its replies. ECF Dkt. #s 221, 222, 225, 226.
This matter is also before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for a Hearing. ECF Dkt. #223. Plaintiff views Defendant's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law as the improper procedure for resolving issues of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. Plaintiff moves the Court to hold a hearing wherein all relevant evidence regarding Plaintiff's constitutional standing can be considered. Id. at 1. Defendant filed its opposition brief to Plaintiff's motion for a hearing. ECF Dkt. #231. No reply brief was filed.
Lastly, this matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's renewed motion briefs. ECF Dkt. #227. Plaintiff argues that Defendant's "standing" and "illegal conduct" arguments were not raised in its original Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, so they cannot be raised now in its Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Id. Thus, Plaintiff contends that Defendant's Renewed Motion Briefs should be stricken. Id. Defendant filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and Plaintiff filed a reply brief. ECF Dkt. #231, 232.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (ECF Dkt. #218), DEFERS RULING on Defendant's conditional Motion for a New Trial (ECF Dkt. #219), DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for a Hearing (ECF Dkt. #223), and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (ECF Dkt. #227). Also, as a result of this ruling, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion to Alter/Amend. ECF Dkt. #201.
Hardrives Paving & Construction, Inc. ("Hardrives") was an asphalt paving company founded by its owner, James Sabatine, in 1977. Trial Tr. at 236. With each passing year, Sabatine obtained larger jobs and steadily expanded his business. Id. at 237. In 1998, CarbonLimestone ("Carbon"), Hardrives's limestone supplier (and the largest limestone supplier in Northeastern Ohio and Western Pennsylvania), revealed that it would stop selling limestone to the public by year's end. Id. at 244. As a result, Hardrives needed a new supplier. Id.
Hardrives was the biggest limestone purchaser in the area and, thus, required a supplier that could meet its high demand at a competitive cost. Trial Tr. at 253-54. Defendant, an aggregate stone supplier with a limestone quarry near Sandusky, Ohio, emerged as a capable replacement. Id. at 51. As a result, Hardrives and Defendant began discussions about a possible business arrangement: Defendant would establish a rail-fed distribution point in Youngstown, Ohio, while Hardrives would operate an asphalt plant there and purchase a specified minimum amount of Defendant's limestone. Id. at 97-98. Hardrives would also receive royalties on all non-Hardrives sales of Defendant's limestone. Id. at 190. On September 1, 1998, the companies met and outlined their discussions in a writing initialed by both parties. Id. at 119-25; ECF Dkt. #122-7.
Thereafter, the parties chose the Center Street site in Youngstown, Ohio for the proposed distribution point. Trial Tr. at 164-66. With the location selected, Sabatine conferred with one of Defendant's salesmen about ordering a new asphalt plant for the site. Id. at 311-12. The salesman responded to Sabatine's plan by saying "great." Id. at 312. Sabatine subsequently paid $383,674 as a down payment for an asphalt plant which ultimately cost $1,534,696. Id. at 310.
In February 1999, the plant was ordered and on its way when Defendant informed Hardrives that it would no longer be pursuing the project. Trial Tr. at 314-15. Shocked by Defendant's reversal, Sabatine moved to salvage his and the company's efforts. Id. at 315, 325. Sabatine first spoke with Defendant, then with other limestone suppliers, but he could not attractrail-fed limestone to the site. Id. at 325-26. After several years, Hardrives continued to lose money, so in March 2001, Sabatine sold Hardrives to the McCourt Construction Company ("McCourt") for $4.7 million. Id. at 330-31. In accordance with a term of the sale, Hardrives was required to change its name, so Hardrives became Cranpark, Inc., the plaintiff in this case. Id. at 236. Sabatine remains the president. Id. at 235.
On September 8, 2004, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel. ECF Dkt. #1. Nine years later, on November 18, 2013, a trial in this matter finally began. ECF Dkt. #181. Therein, the parties presented their cases, and at the close of evidence, Defendant orally moved for judgment as a matter of law. Trial Tr. at 641. Defendant contended, among other things, that insufficient evidence existed to support a finding that Plaintiff "was the proper party to this case." Id. at 641-42. The Court denied the motion. Id. at 643.
The Court subsequently submitted the case to the jury, and, on November 22, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff on its promissory estoppel claim and awarded Plaintiff damages in the amount of $15,600,000.00. ECF Dkt. #s 193, 195.
The parties thereafter filed a flurry of post-trial motions. On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment. ECF Dkt. #201. Defendant filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiff's motion and Plaintiff filed a reply brief. ECF Dkt. #208, 210. On December 5, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment Pending Disposition of Post-Trial Motions. ECF Dkt. #203. Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to Defendant's motion to stay execution of judgment without posting a bond. ECF Dkt. #209.
After a hearing on the Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment and the Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment, the Court deferred ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment and granted Defendant's Motion to Stay Execution upon Defendant posting a supersedeas bond in the amount of $15,600,000.00. ECF Dkt. #214. Defendant posted said bond on December 20, 2013 and the Court stayed execution of the judgment in this case pending the disposition of post-trial motions. ECF Dkt. #217.
On December 30, 2013, Defendant filed the instant Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for New Trial. ECF Dkt. #s 218, 219. On January 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed responses to those motions. ECF Dkt. #s 221, 223. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conference/Hearing on January 20, 2014 as well and filed a Motion to Strike Defendant's Renewed Motion Briefs on February 12, 2014. ECF Dkt. #223, 227. Defendant filed replies to Plaintiff's responses on February 6, 2014 and filed a response brief to Plaintiff's Motion for Conference/Hearing and Motion to Strike on March 3, 2014. ECF Dkt. #s 225, 226, 231.
Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if a court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made after the close of all the evidence at trial and the party renews its request after a verdict is returned, the court may (1) allow the judgment to stand, (2) order a new trial, or (3) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). "Judgment as a matter of law may only be granted if, when viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences, there is no genuine issue of material fact for the jury, and reasonable minds could come to butonly conclusion in favor of the moving party." Balsley v. LFP, Inc., 691 F.3d 747, 757 (6th Cir. 2012), citing Barnes v. City of Cin., 401 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2005). In its review, the Court cannot "reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses" because the "review is restricted to the evidence that was admitted at trial." Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 305 (6th Cir.2010) ().
The Sixth Circuit has held that in a diversity of citizenship case, a federal court applies the standard of review of the forum state, which in this case is Ohio. See Tompkins v. Crown Corr., Inc., 726 F.3d 830, 844 (6th Cir. 2013), citing Kusens v. Pascal Co., 448 F.3d 349, 360 (6th Cir. 2006).; K&T Enterprises, Inc. v. Zurich Ins., 97 F.3d 171, 176 (6th Cir. 1996). Under Ohio law, a motion for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict under Rule 50(b) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Posin v. A.B.C. Motor Court Hotel, Inc., 45 Ohio St.2d 271, 275,...
To continue reading
Request your trial