Res. Point, LLC v. Addolux, LLC, SC: 158632

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Citation505 Mich. 985,953 N.W.2d 190 (Mem)
Decision Date07 February 2020
Parties RESOURCE POINT, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADDOLUX, LLC, Defendant, and Masoud Abbasi, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket NumberSC: 158632,COA: 338338

505 Mich. 985
953 N.W.2d 190 (Mem)

RESOURCE POINT, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ADDOLUX, LLC, Defendant,
and
Masoud Abbasi, Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 158632
COA: 338338

Supreme Court of Michigan.

February 7, 2020


Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 20, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

Zahra, J. (dissenting).

I disagree with the Court's decision to deny defendant's application for leave. Because the Court of Appeals failed to defer to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility,1 I would reverse in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals as to damages and remand this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for reinstatement of its damages award.2

Defendant contracted with plaintiff to provide Information Technology work for Gordon Food Service (GFS) from October 2012 through February 8, 2014 (referred to as the "first engagement"). The contract included a noncompete agreement that expired on August 8, 2015. Defendant violated the noncompete agreement by soliciting work from GFS. Specifically, in June 2015, plaintiff contacted GFS so as to arrange additional work for defendant, but it learned that defendant had already directly solicited and obtained employment at GFS (referred to as the "second engagement").

Plaintiff sued and, following a bench trial, the trial court found that defendant had breached the noncompete agreement and was liable to plaintiff for breach of contract. The more difficult issue was determining damages. The Court of Appeals provided this summary:

During the first GFS engagement, GFS paid [plaintiff] $160 per hour of services; [plaintiff] in turn paid [defendant] $115 an hour, leaving [plaintiff] with a profit of $45 per hour. After six months, GFS increased the pay rate to $180 per hour. [Plaintiff] paid [defendant] $130 an hour, for a profit of $50 per hour. Under both pay rates, [plaintiff] retained 28% of the GFS payment. During the second GFS engagement, [defendant] worked for a different GFS department. Under this contract, GFS paid [defendant] $150 per hour. And from June 2015 through the time of trial, [defendant] had worked a total of 2,896 hours.[3 ]

The Court of Appeals also summarized the disagreement about damages related to defendant's work during the second GFS engagement:

[Plaintiff] provided evidence that it bore some overhead from negotiating the first
953 N.W.2d 191
contract between GFS and
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Livings v. Sage's Inv. Grp., LLC, 159692
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • June 30, 2021
    ...of fact concerning whether the parking lot constituted an effectively unavoidable condition." Livings v. Sage's Investment Group, LLC , 505 Mich. 985, 985, 937 N.W.2d 694 (2020).II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition. Bank of Am......
  • Estate of Livings v. Sage's Inv. Grp., LLC, No. 159692
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • June 30, 2021
    ...again sought leave to appeal. The Supreme Court ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. 505 Mich 985 (2020). After Livings's death in March 2020, her estate was substituted as the named plaintiff. In an opinion by Justice VIVIANO, joined by ......
2 cases
  • Livings v. Sage's Inv. Grp., LLC, 159692
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • June 30, 2021
    ...fact concerning whether the parking lot constituted an effectively unavoidable condition." Livings v. Sage's Investment Group, LLC , 505 Mich. 985, 985, 937 N.W.2d 694 (2020).II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition. Bank of ......
  • Estate of Livings v. Sage's Inv. Grp., LLC, No. 159692
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • June 30, 2021
    ...again sought leave to appeal. The Supreme Court ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. 505 Mich 985 (2020). After Livings's death in March 2020, her estate was substituted as the named plaintiff. In an opinion by Justice VIVIANO, joined by ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT