throbber
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 01.112018 04:48 PM
`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 01/10/2018 04:48 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 224
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 224
`
`INDEX N0. 812553/20’1’5
`INDEX NO. 812553/2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RnCnIVnD VYSCEF: 01/10/2018
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2018
`
`EXHIBIT 18
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 01/10/2018 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 224
`
`INDEX NO. 812553/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2018
`
`Case
`
`1:07-cv-12100-GAO
`
`Document
`
`237
`
`Filed
`
`03/31/11
`
`Page
`
`1 of 9
`
`UNITED
`DISTRICT
`
`COURT
`DISTRICT
`STATES
`OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`CIVIL
`
`ACTION
`
`NO.
`
`07-12100-GAO
`
`COMPANION
`
`HEALTH
`
`SERVICES,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INC.,
`
`a Massachusetts
`
`corporation,
`
`MAJORS
`a Michigan
`INC.,
`MOBILITY,
`MMS NORTHERN
`corporation;
`MOBILITY-ZANESVILLE,
`LLC,
`MARY KAY REID;
`STUART
`
`corporation;
`DETROIT,
`INC.,
`a Michigan
`limited
`liability
`and JACOB
`SHERMAN;
`Defendants,
`
`MAJORS
`a Michigan
`
`a Michigan
`INC.,
`MEDICAL,
`MAJORS
`corporation;
`GEORGE
`company;
`KURTZ;
`& WEINGARTEN,
`P.C.,
`
`and
`
`J.P. MORGAN
`CHASE
`as Trustee-Process
`
`BANK,
`Defendant.
`
`N.A.,
`
`FINDINGS
`
`OF FACT,
`CONCLUSIONS
`FOR JUDGMENT
`ORDER
`March
`31, 2011
`
`OF LAW,
`
`and
`
`O'
`O'TOOLE,
`
`D.J.
`
`After
`
`trial
`
`on
`
`the matter,
`
`a jury
`
`found
`
`that
`
`the
`
`defendant,
`
`Majors
`
`Mobility,
`
`Inc.,
`
`had
`
`breached
`
`four
`
`of
`
`with
`
`Companion
`
`Health
`
`its agreements
`
`the plaintiff,
`
`Services,
`
`Inc.,
`
`and awarded
`
`Companion
`
`damages
`
`for
`
`three
`
`of
`
`the
`
`four
`
`breaches.
`
`Companion
`
`now
`
`seeks
`
`further
`
`recovery
`
`for
`
`unjust
`
`enrichment,
`
`interest
`
`payments,
`
`and
`
`violations
`
`of Chapter
`
`93A
`
`of
`
`the Massachusetts
`
`General
`
`Laws
`
`("
`("Chapter
`
`93A").
`
`Companion
`
`also
`
`seeks
`
`judgment
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law to recover
`
`additional
`
`damages
`
`not
`
`awarded
`
`by
`
`the jury.
`
`The
`
`defendant
`
`opposes
`
`recovery
`
`beyond
`
`the jury
`
`award.
`
`The Court
`
`finds
`
`and concludes
`
`as follows.
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 01/10/2018 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 224
`
`INDEX NO. 812553/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2018
`
`Case
`
`1:07-cv-12100-GAO
`
`Document
`
`237
`
`Filed
`
`03/31/11
`
`Page
`
`2 of 9
`
`Findings
`
`of Fact
`
`Companion,
`
`a Massachusetts
`
`company,
`
`licenses
`
`locations
`
`within
`
`Wal-Mart
`
`stores
`
`to
`
`companies
`
`that
`
`sell
`
`durable
`
`medical
`
`equipment.
`
`Majors,
`
`a Michigan
`
`company
`
`operated
`
`by
`
`George
`
`Kurtz
`
`and Mary
`
`Kay
`
`Reid,
`
`entered
`
`with
`
`Companion
`
`into
`
`a number
`
`of
`
`these
`
`licensing
`
`agreements.
`
`In April
`
`2005,
`
`Companion
`
`and Majors
`
`entered
`
`into
`
`such
`
`an agreement
`
`for
`
`a store
`
`in
`
`in December
`
`and in December
`
`Mansfield,
`
`Ohio;
`
`2006,
`
`for
`
`a store
`
`in Zanesville,
`
`Ohio;
`
`2006,
`
`for a
`
`store
`
`in Evansville,
`
`Indiana.
`
`Majors
`
`expressed
`
`interest
`
`in
`
`licensing
`
`three
`
`additional
`
`Wal-Mart
`
`locations
`
`as well.
`
`Companion
`
`also
`
`had
`
`licensed
`
`twenty
`
`locations
`
`to a man
`
`named
`
`Scott Hirsh.
`
`By
`
`the fall
`
`of
`
`2006,
`
`Hirsch
`
`was
`
`behind
`
`in his
`
`rent
`
`payments
`
`for
`
`those
`
`locations.
`
`On or about
`
`January
`
`10, 2007,
`
`an associate
`
`of Hirsch
`
`told
`
`Jack
`
`Huls
`
`of Companion
`
`that Hirsch
`
`would
`
`shut
`
`down
`
`his
`
`twenty
`
`locations
`
`in the
`
`very
`
`near
`
`future
`
`if Hirsch
`
`did
`
`not
`
`receive
`
`certain
`
`concessions.
`
`Soon
`
`after
`
`this
`
`conversation,
`
`Huls
`
`contacted
`
`Kurtz
`
`and told
`
`him that Companion
`
`was
`
`at
`
`risk
`
`of defaulting
`
`on its
`
`agreements
`
`with
`
`Wal-Mart
`
`if Hirsch
`
`shut
`
`down
`
`his
`
`locations.
`
`Huls
`
`informed
`
`Kurtz
`
`that
`
`Companion
`
`would
`
`have
`
`to take
`
`over Hirsch's
`
`locations.
`
`He
`
`asked
`
`if Majors
`
`would
`
`be interested
`
`in succeeding
`
`Hirsch
`
`in those
`
`locations.
`
`Kurtz
`
`said
`
`that Majors
`
`would
`
`be interested
`
`in taking
`
`over
`
`locations.
`
`the
`
`On January
`
`17, 2007,
`
`Majors
`
`took
`
`over
`
`the twenty
`
`Hirsch
`
`locations,
`
`although
`
`the written
`
`terms
`
`of an agreement
`
`between
`
`Companion
`
`and Majors
`
`had
`
`not
`
`yet been
`
`finalized
`
`by the time
`
`the takeovers.
`
`Lawyers
`
`from
`
`Companion
`
`and Majors
`
`then worked
`
`to capture
`
`their
`
`agreements
`
`of
`
`in
`
`writing.
`
`On
`
`January
`
`19, Kimberly
`
`Mairs
`
`of Companion
`
`signed
`
`the Master
`
`Agreement
`
`between
`
`the
`
`two
`
`parties.
`
`On
`
`January
`
`30,
`
`2007,
`
`Kurtz
`
`signed
`
`the Master
`
`Agreement
`
`and
`
`Equipment
`
`Agreement
`
`on behalf
`
`of Majors.
`
`2
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 01/10/2018 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 224
`
`INDEX NO. 812553/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2018
`
`Case
`
`1:07-cv-12100-GAO
`
`Document
`
`237
`
`Filed
`
`03/31/11
`
`Page
`
`3 of 9
`
`Problems
`
`soon
`
`arose. Within
`
`weeks
`
`of
`
`the
`
`signing,
`
`employees
`
`at certain
`
`of
`
`the
`
`locations
`
`were
`
`claiming
`
`that Majors
`
`had
`
`not
`
`paid
`
`them,
`
`and
`
`some
`
`locations
`
`under
`
`control
`
`of Majors
`
`were
`
`not
`
`opening
`
`for business.
`
`Majors
`
`was
`
`dissatisfied
`
`with
`
`the training
`
`and
`
`skills
`
`of
`
`the employees
`
`at
`
`its newly-acquired
`
`locations
`
`and with
`
`the
`
`quality
`
`of
`
`the
`
`inventory
`
`there.
`
`By
`
`late February
`
`2007,
`
`Reid
`
`informed
`
`Companion
`
`its
`
`that Majors
`
`intended
`
`to close
`
`down
`
`locations.
`
`By March
`
`1, 2007,
`
`Majors
`
`had vacated
`
`all
`
`twenty
`
`Hirsch
`
`locations
`
`as well
`
`as Major's
`
`three
`
`original
`
`locations.
`
`The
`
`closure
`
`of
`
`these
`
`locations
`
`caused
`
`Companion
`
`significant
`
`economic
`
`damage
`
`and
`
`harmed
`
`Companion's
`
`valuable
`
`relationship
`
`with
`
`Wal-Mart.
`
`Companion
`
`was
`
`able
`
`to
`
`find
`
`replacement
`
`operators
`
`for
`
`some,
`
`but
`
`not all,
`
`of
`
`the locations
`
`that Majors
`
`had
`
`left. Companion
`
`was
`
`required
`
`to return
`
`unoccupied
`
`sites
`
`to Wal-Mart
`
`in a cleaned
`
`"white-box"
`
`condition.
`
`On November
`
`Companion
`
`commenced
`
`this
`
`suit
`
`against
`
`7, 2007,
`
`Majors,
`
`Kutz,
`
`Reid,
`
`and
`
`related
`
`entities.
`
`As
`
`noted,
`
`after
`
`trial,
`
`the
`
`jury
`
`found
`
`that Majors
`
`had
`
`breached
`
`the Master
`
`Agreement
`
`and the
`
`agreements
`
`for
`
`the Mansfield,
`
`Zanesville,
`
`and Evansville
`
`locations.
`
`The jury
`
`also
`
`found
`
`that Majors
`
`breached
`
`the
`
`implied
`
`covenant
`
`of
`
`good
`
`faith
`
`and
`
`fair
`
`dealing
`
`for
`
`those
`
`agreements.
`
`From
`
`these
`
`breaches,
`
`the
`
`jury
`
`found
`
`that
`
`Companion
`
`suffered
`
`the
`
`following
`
`damages:
`
`$968,036
`
`with
`
`regard
`
`to
`
`the Master
`
`Agreement,
`
`$0 with
`
`regard
`
`to
`
`the Mansfield
`
`with
`
`Agreement,
`
`$11,541
`
`regard
`
`to the Zanesville
`
`Agreement,
`
`and
`
`$63,932
`
`with
`
`regard
`
`to the
`
`Evansville
`
`Agreement.
`
`The
`
`jury
`
`found
`
`that Majors
`
`had
`
`not
`
`breached
`
`the Equipment
`
`Agreement
`
`nor
`
`that
`
`agreement's
`
`covenant
`
`of good
`
`faith
`
`and fair
`
`dealing.
`
`The
`
`parties
`
`now
`
`dispute
`
`whether
`
`Companion
`
`is entitled
`
`to damages
`
`under
`
`Chapter
`
`93A
`
`and
`
`for
`
`unjust
`
`enrichment,
`
`whether
`
`Companion
`
`is entitled
`
`to additional
`
`recovery
`
`for
`
`its attorney
`
`fees
`
`and
`
`"white-box"
`
`fees,
`
`and whether
`
`Companion
`
`is entitled
`
`to damages
`
`for
`
`the
`
`breach
`
`of
`
`the
`
`3
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 01/10/2018 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 224
`
`INDEX NO. 812553/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2018
`
`Case
`
`1:07-cv-12100-GAO
`
`Document
`
`237
`
`Filed
`
`03/31/11
`
`Page
`
`4 of 9
`
`Mansfield
`
`Agreement.
`
`Companion
`
`also
`
`seeks,
`
`without
`
`opposition,
`
`interest
`
`on
`
`its
`
`award
`
`of
`
`damages.
`
`II
`
`Conclusions
`
`of Law
`
`&
`
`Chapter
`
`93A
`
`Section
`
`11 of Chapter
`
`93A
`
`provides
`
`that
`
`"[a]ny
`
`person
`
`who
`
`engages
`
`in the
`
`conduct
`
`of
`
`any
`
`trade
`
`or
`
`commerce
`
`and who
`
`suffers
`
`any
`
`loss
`
`of money
`
`or property,
`
`real
`
`or personal,
`
`as a
`
`result
`
`of
`
`the use or employment
`
`person
`
`who
`
`engages
`
`trade
`
`or commerce
`
`of
`
`. . .
`
`an
`
`unfair
`
`or
`
`deceptive
`
`act
`
`or
`
`by another
`
`practice"
`
`in any
`
`is entitled
`
`to
`
`relief.
`
`To
`
`determine
`
`whether
`
`an
`
`act
`
`or
`
`practice
`
`is unfair
`
`or deceptive
`
`under
`
`Chapter
`
`93A,
`
`a court must
`
`focus
`
`primarily
`
`on "the
`
`nature
`
`of
`
`challenged
`
`conduct
`
`and
`
`on the
`
`purpose
`
`and
`
`effect
`
`of
`
`that
`
`conduct."
`
`Mass.
`
`Emp'rs
`
`Ins. Exch.
`
`v.
`
`Propac-Mass,
`
`Inc.,
`
`648 N.E.2d
`
`435,
`
`438
`
`(Mass.
`
`1995).
`
`"A mere
`
`breach
`
`of contract
`
`does
`
`not
`
`constitute
`
`an unfair
`
`or deceptive
`
`trade
`
`practice
`
`under
`
`to
`
`the
`
`extortion'
`
`93A,
`
`unless
`
`it
`
`rises
`
`level
`
`of
`
`'commercial
`
`or
`
`a similar
`
`degree
`
`of
`
`culpable
`
`conduct."
`
`Commercial
`
`Union
`
`Ins. Co.
`
`v. Seven
`
`Provinces
`
`Ins. Co.,
`
`217
`
`F.3d
`
`33,
`
`40
`
`(1st Cir.
`
`2000)
`
`(internal
`
`citations
`
`and
`
`quotations
`
`omitted);
`
`accord
`
`Pepsi-Cola
`
`Metro.
`
`Bottling
`
`Co.
`
`v.
`
`Checkers,
`
`Inc.,
`
`754
`
`F.2d
`
`10,
`
`18-19
`
`(1st
`
`Cir.
`
`1985)
`
`(93A
`
`violation
`
`where
`
`defendant
`
`withheld
`
`money
`
`legally
`
`owed
`
`"as
`
`a form
`
`of extortion"
`
`to force
`
`plaintiff
`
`to do "what
`
`otherwise
`
`it could
`
`not
`
`be
`
`required
`
`to
`
`legally
`
`do");
`
`Anthony's
`
`Pier
`
`Four,
`
`Inc.
`
`v. HBC Assocs.,
`
`583 N.E.2d
`
`806,
`
`822
`
`(Mass.
`
`1991)
`
`(93A
`
`violation
`
`where
`
`defendant
`
`used
`
`a pretext
`
`"to
`
`coerce
`
`[plaintiff]
`
`into
`
`paying
`
`[defendant]
`
`more
`
`than
`
`the
`
`contract
`
`required");
`
`Cmty.
`
`.
`
`Builders,
`
`Inc.
`
`v.
`
`Indian
`
`Motorcycle
`
`Assocs.,
`
`Inc.,
`
`692
`
`N.E.2d
`
`964,
`
`978
`
`(Mass.
`
`App.
`
`Ct.
`
`1998)
`
`(93A
`
`violation
`
`where
`
`defendant
`
`withheld
`
`payments
`
`"all
`
`with
`
`a purpose
`
`of
`
`coercing"
`coercing"
`
`plaintiff
`
`into
`
`accepting
`
`a less
`
`favorable
`
`settlement).
`
`4
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 01/10/2018 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 224
`
`INDEX NO. 812553/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2018
`
`Case
`
`1:07-cv-12100-GAO
`
`Document
`
`237
`
`Filed
`
`03/31/11
`
`Page
`
`5 of 9
`
`In the present
`
`case,
`
`the
`
`defendants'
`
`actions
`
`did
`
`not
`
`amount
`
`to a violation
`
`of Chapter
`
`93A.
`
`The
`
`defendants
`
`here
`
`originally
`
`operated
`
`three
`
`locations
`
`and, within
`
`a short
`
`time
`
`span,
`
`sought
`
`to
`
`begin
`
`operating
`
`over
`
`six
`
`times
`
`as many
`
`locations.
`
`The
`
`circumstances
`
`prompting
`
`the
`
`defendants'
`
`takeover
`
`of
`
`these
`
`—
`locations-Hirsch's
`
`impending
`
`closure
`
`of his
`
`twenty
`
`—
`locations-emphasize
`
`the
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`and the
`
`speed with
`
`which
`
`had to
`
`time
`
`pressure
`
`under
`
`which
`
`here were
`
`operating
`
`they
`
`make
`
`their
`
`decisions.
`
`Under
`
`such
`
`circumstances,
`
`where
`
`events
`
`were
`
`unfolding
`
`quickly
`
`and there
`
`was
`
`little
`
`time
`
`to make
`
`a full
`
`assessment
`
`of
`
`the
`
`situation,
`
`it
`
`is not
`
`entirely
`
`surprising
`
`that
`
`the
`
`defendants,
`
`though
`
`well-intentioned,
`
`misjudged
`
`their
`
`ability
`
`to assume
`
`capably
`
`these
`
`twenty
`
`new
`
`locations.
`
`The
`
`defendants'
`
`actions
`
`do not
`
`demonstrate
`
`an intent
`
`to coerce
`
`and
`
`do not
`
`rise
`
`to the
`
`commercial
`
`demonstrate
`
`miscalculation
`
`poor
`
`business
`
`level
`
`of
`
`extortion.
`
`They
`
`and,
`
`at worst,
`
`judgment.
`
`They
`
`do not
`
`constitute
`
`a basis
`
`for
`
`liability
`
`under
`
`Chapter
`
`93A.
`
`B.
`
`Zanesville,
`
`Evansville,
`
`and Master
`
`Agreements
`
`As
`
`for
`
`the Zanesville,
`
`Evansville,
`
`and Master
`
`Agreements,
`
`the jury
`
`awarded
`
`an amount
`
`greater
`
`than
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`Companion
`
`had argued
`
`was
`
`due
`
`for
`
`lost
`
`profits
`
`from the
`
`breach
`
`of each
`
`of
`
`these
`
`contracts.'
`contracts.'
`
`Companion
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`the Court
`
`should
`
`award
`
`it amounts
`
`beyond
`
`those
`
`fees
`
`and
`
`"white-box"
`
`the fact
`
`that
`
`the
`
`awarded
`
`by the jury
`
`to account
`
`for
`
`attorney
`
`fees. However,
`
`jurors
`
`awarded
`
`an amount
`
`higher
`
`than
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`of profits
`
`lost
`
`from the
`
`breaches
`
`may
`
`indicate
`
`that
`
`the jurors
`
`already
`
`accounted
`
`for
`
`these
`
`fees
`
`in their
`
`award.
`
`At
`
`any
`
`rate,
`
`the jurors
`
`had a good
`
`deal
`
`of
`
`information
`
`about
`
`the
`
`financial
`
`issues,
`
`and
`
`it was
`
`up to them to make
`
`the assessment
`
`they
`
`adjudged
`
`appropriate.
`
`An
`
`award
`
`of additional
`
`fees
`
`is here
`
`unwarranted.
`
`I The
`and
`requested
`Zanesville
`Agreement:
`
`awarded
`$7,775
`
`amounts
`/ $11,541;
`
`are as follows:
`Evansville
`
`Master
`Agreement:
`
`Agreement:
`$43,932
`
`$905,759
`/ $63,932.
`
`/ $968,036;
`
`5
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 01/10/2018 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 224
`
`INDEX NO. 812553/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2018
`
`Case
`
`1:07-cv-12100-GAO
`
`Document
`
`237
`
`Filed
`
`03/31/11
`
`Page
`
`6 of 9
`
`G
`
`Mansfield
`
`Agreement
`
`As
`
`for
`
`the Mansfield
`
`Agreement,
`
`the jury
`
`found
`
`that Majors
`
`breached
`
`the contract
`
`but did
`
`not
`
`award
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`any
`
`damages
`
`for
`
`that
`
`breach.
`
`Companion
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`no reasonable
`
`jury
`
`could
`
`have
`
`found
`
`a lack
`
`of
`
`damages
`
`here
`
`and
`
`therefore
`
`seeks
`
`to
`
`have
`
`the
`
`court
`
`set a damage
`
`amount
`
`for breach
`
`of
`
`the Mansfield
`
`agreement
`
`notwithstanding
`
`the jury
`
`verdict.
`
`"A
`
`to
`
`overturn
`
`a jury
`
`verdict
`
`faces
`
`an uphill
`
`battle."
`
`Marcano
`
`Rivera
`
`v.
`
`party
`
`seeking
`
`Turabo
`
`Med.
`
`Ctr.
`
`P'ship,
`
`415
`
`F.3d
`
`162,
`
`167 (1st Cir.
`
`2005).
`
`"A motion
`
`for
`
`judgment
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law
`
`only
`
`may
`
`be
`
`granted
`
`when,
`
`after
`
`examining
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`of
`
`record
`
`and
`
`drawing
`
`all
`
`reasonable
`
`inferences
`
`in
`
`favor
`
`of
`
`the
`
`nonmoving
`
`party,
`
`the
`
`record
`
`reveals
`
`no
`
`sufficient
`
`evidentiary
`
`basis
`
`for
`
`the
`
`verdict."
`
`Zimmerman
`
`v. Direct
`
`Fed. Credit
`
`Union,
`
`262
`
`F.3d
`
`70, 75 (1st
`
`Cir.
`
`2001).
`
`"This
`
`review
`
`is weighted
`
`toward
`
`preservation
`
`of
`
`the jury
`
`verdict,
`
`which
`
`stands
`
`unless
`
`that
`
`no
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`was
`
`so
`
`strongly
`
`and
`
`overwhelmingly
`
`inconsistent
`
`with
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`reasonable
`
`jury
`
`could
`
`have
`
`returned
`
`it." Crowe
`
`v. Bolduc,
`
`334 F.3d
`
`124,
`
`134 (1st Cir.
`
`2003).
`
`In the present
`
`case,
`
`a jury
`
`reasonably
`
`could
`
`find
`
`no damages
`
`arising
`
`from the
`
`defendants'
`
`breach
`
`of
`
`the Mansfield
`
`Agreement.
`
`As
`
`a general
`
`matter,
`
`a reasonable
`
`jury
`
`can
`
`find
`
`a breach
`
`but
`
`find
`
`no actual
`
`damages.
`
`See Flynn
`
`v. AK Peters,
`
`Ltd.,
`
`377 F.3d
`
`13, 23 (1st Cir.
`
`2004);
`
`Bartlett
`
`v.
`
`Keith,
`
`90 N.E.2d
`
`308,
`
`309
`
`(Mass.
`
`1950).
`
`As
`
`for
`
`the present
`
`matter,
`
`a reasonable
`
`jury
`
`could
`
`have
`
`Majors'
`
`see Trial
`
`found
`
`that Companion
`
`profited
`
`from
`
`success
`
`under
`
`the Mansfield
`
`Agreement,
`
`Tr.
`
`vol.
`
`5,
`
`113:11-113:24,
`
`Aug.
`
`23,
`
`2010,
`
`that
`
`Companion
`
`benefited
`
`from
`
`Majors'
`
`significant
`
`initial
`
`investments
`
`in the Mansfield
`
`location,
`
`see Trial
`
`Tr.
`
`vol.
`
`3, 75:3-75:18,
`
`Aug.
`
`18, 2010,
`
`that
`
`Companion
`
`was
`
`able
`
`to find
`
`operators
`
`for
`
`the Mansfield
`
`locations
`
`to mitigate
`
`the
`
`harm caused
`
`when Majors
`
`left,
`
`see Trial
`
`Tr.
`
`vol.
`
`5, 88:11-88:14,
`
`Aug.
`
`23,
`
`2010,
`
`and
`
`that Companion
`
`did
`
`not
`
`"white-box"
`
`pay
`
`any
`
`fees
`
`to clear
`
`that
`
`location,
`
`see Trial
`
`Tr.
`
`vol.
`
`5, 69:16-69:19,
`
`Aug.
`
`23,
`
`2010.
`
`6
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 01/10/2018 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 224
`
`INDEX NO. 812553/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2018
`
`Case
`
`1:07-cv-12100-GAO
`
`Document
`
`237
`
`Filed
`
`03/31/11
`
`Page
`
`7 of 9
`
`Considering
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`before
`
`it, a jury
`
`reasonably
`
`could
`
`have
`
`concluded
`
`that Companion
`
`was
`
`entitled
`
`to no damages
`
`for
`
`breach
`
`of
`
`the Mansfield
`
`Agreement.
`
`Even
`
`where
`
`there
`
`are no actual
`
`damages
`
`awarded,
`
`a plaintiff
`
`may
`
`be entitled
`
`to nominal
`
`damages
`
`for
`
`a breach
`
`of a contract.
`
`S_ee Spring
`
`v. Geriatric
`
`Auth.
`
`of Holyoke,
`
`475 N.E.2d
`
`727,
`
`737
`
`(Mass.
`
`1985).
`
`The
`
`plaintiff
`
`here,
`
`however,
`
`has
`
`expressed
`
`no
`
`interest
`
`in receiving
`
`merely
`
`nominal
`
`damages,
`
`and
`
`it
`
`is therefore
`
`unnecessary
`
`to amend
`
`the jury
`
`verdict
`
`and
`
`order
`
`entry
`
`of
`
`judgment
`
`for
`
`$1. S_e_eForlano
`
`v. Hughes,
`
`471 N.E.2d
`
`1315,
`
`1320
`
`n.11
`
`(Mass.
`
`1984)
`
`("
`("Although
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`might
`
`be entitled
`
`to nominal
`
`damages
`
`for
`
`the
`
`breach,
`
`he has not
`
`urged
`
`this
`
`point
`
`on
`
`us, and
`
`hence
`
`we
`
`do not
`
`think
`
`it necessary
`
`to order
`
`entry
`
`of
`
`judgment
`
`for
`
`$1.")
`
`(internal
`
`citation
`
`omitted).
`
`The jury
`
`verdict
`
`will
`
`stand
`
`unamended.
`
`D.
`
`The
`
`Unjust
`
`Enrichment
`
`found
`
`breach
`
`jury
`
`that Majors
`
`did
`
`not
`
`the Equipment
`
`Agreement
`
`with
`
`Companion.
`
`Companion
`
`nevertheless
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`it
`
`should
`
`be
`
`compensated
`
`for
`
`losses
`
`arising
`
`from
`
`that
`
`agreement
`
`because
`
`Majors
`
`was
`
`unjustly
`
`enriched.
`
`The
`
`plaintiff
`
`addresses
`
`this
`
`argument
`
`only
`
`in a
`
`perfunctory
`
`manner
`
`and
`
`fails
`
`to supply
`
`legal
`
`authority
`
`in support
`
`of
`
`its position.
`
`See Redondo-
`
`Borges
`
`v. U.S. Dep't
`
`of Hous.
`
`2 Urban
`
`Dev.,
`
`421 F.3d
`
`1, 6 (1st Cir.
`
`2005);
`
`see also Harriman
`
`v.
`
`Hancock
`
`627
`
`F.3d
`
`28 (1st Cir.
`
`("It
`
`is not
`
`enough
`
`to mention
`
`Cnty.,
`
`22,
`
`2010)
`
`merely
`
`a possible
`
`argument
`
`in the most
`
`skeletal
`
`way,
`
`leaving
`
`the court
`
`to do counsel's
`
`work,
`
`create
`
`the ossature
`
`for
`
`the argument,
`
`and
`
`put
`
`flesh
`
`on its bones.").
`
`In any
`
`event,
`
`Companion
`
`apparently
`
`urges
`
`the Court
`
`to
`
`find
`
`unjust
`
`enrichment
`
`because
`
`Majors
`
`sold
`
`inventory
`
`and
`
`equipment
`
`that
`
`were
`
`"made
`
`available
`
`by
`
`Companion"
`
`and
`
`that were
`
`"received
`
`pursuant
`
`to the Equipment
`
`Agreement,"
`
`Pl.'s
`
`Proposed
`
`Findings
`
`of Fact
`
`and Conclusions
`
`of Law
`
`15 (dkt.
`
`no.
`
`221),
`
`yet
`
`such
`
`allegations,
`
`even
`
`7
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 01/10/2018 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 224
`
`INDEX NO. 812553/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2018
`
`Case
`
`1:07-cv-12100-GAO
`
`Document
`
`237
`
`Filed
`
`03/31/11
`
`Page
`
`8 of 9
`
`if
`
`true,
`
`do not
`
`amount
`
`to enrichment
`
`so unjust
`
`as to merit
`
`legal
`
`remedy
`
`where
`
`there
`
`has been
`
`no
`
`breach
`
`of
`
`contract.
`
`S_ee Brandt
`
`v. Wand
`
`Partners,
`
`242
`
`F.3d
`
`6,
`
`16 (1st Cir.
`
`2001);
`
`Salamon
`
`v.
`
`Terra,
`
`477 N.E.2d
`
`1029,
`
`1031
`
`(Mass.
`
`1985).
`
`After
`
`review
`
`of
`
`the record,
`
`the Court
`
`finds
`
`no cause
`
`unjust
`
`enrichment
`
`here.
`
`to award
`
`damages
`
`for
`
`E.
`
`Interest
`
`Companion
`
`has
`
`also
`
`argued
`
`that
`
`the Court
`
`must
`
`award
`
`interest
`
`on the judgments
`
`in this
`
`case,
`
`and Majors
`
`has
`
`not
`
`disputed
`
`either
`
`the
`
`appropriateness
`
`of
`
`such
`
`an award
`
`or
`
`the method
`
`by
`
`which
`
`Companion
`
`has
`
`calculated
`
`the
`
`amount.
`
`The
`
`Court
`
`therefore
`
`adopts
`
`the
`
`plaintiffs
`
`proposals,
`
`adjusted
`
`to fit more
`
`closely
`
`with
`
`the findings
`
`and conclusions
`
`in this
`
`opinion.
`
`and
`
`The
`
`defendants
`
`shall
`
`pay
`
`pre-judgment
`
`interest
`
`computed
`
`at
`
`the
`
`contract
`
`rate
`
`of one
`
`one-half
`
`percent
`
`per month.
`
`For
`
`the Master
`
`Agreement,
`
`interest
`
`will
`
`be added
`
`starting
`
`on March
`
`1, 2007
`
`to the
`
`amount
`
`of
`
`$905,729;
`
`for
`
`the Zanesville
`
`Agreement,
`
`it will
`
`be added
`
`starting
`
`on
`
`November
`
`7, 2007
`
`to the
`
`amount
`
`of $7,775;
`
`and,
`
`for
`
`the Evansville
`
`Agreement,
`
`it will
`
`be added
`
`starting
`
`on November
`
`7, 2007
`
`to the
`
`amount
`
`of $43,932.
`
`The
`
`defendants
`
`shall
`
`pay
`
`post-judgment
`
`interest
`
`in accordance
`
`with
`
`28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1961.
`
`F.
`
`Personal
`
`Liability
`
`The
`
`defendants
`
`argue
`
`that
`
`only
`
`Majors
`
`is liable
`
`for
`
`breach
`
`of
`
`contract.
`
`In case
`
`there
`
`is
`
`confusion
`
`on the matter,
`
`the Court
`
`urges
`
`the
`
`defendants
`
`to be mindful
`
`of
`
`its June
`
`9, 2010
`
`ruling
`
`that
`
`the plaintiff
`
`may
`
`pierce
`
`the corporate
`
`veil
`
`to reach
`
`Kurtz
`
`and Reid.
`
`That
`
`ruling
`
`still
`
`holds.
`
`8
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 01/10/2018 04:48 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 224
`
`INDEX NO. 812553/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2018
`
`Case
`
`1:07-cv-12100-GAO
`
`Document
`
`237
`
`Filed
`
`03/31/11
`
`Page
`
`9 of 9
`
`III.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Accordingly,
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`motion
`
`(dkt.
`
`no.
`
`221)
`
`for
`
`judgment
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law
`
`is
`
`DENIED.
`
`The
`
`Court
`
`finds
`
`no
`
`unjust
`
`enrichment
`
`or violation
`
`of Chapter
`
`93A.
`
`Interest
`
`shall
`
`be
`
`computed
`
`in accordance
`
`with
`
`this
`
`opinion.
`
`It
`
`is SO ORDERED.
`
`O'
`Jr.
`A. O'Toole,
`/s/ George
`United
`States District
`Judge
`
`9
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket