`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
`
`