United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LIMITED RECONSIDERATION AND RELIEF CONCERNING THE SUMMARY JUDMGENT ORDER AS TO PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, ONLY [#120]
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Gonzalez Production Systems, Inc. ("Gonzalez"), commenced this action on April 4, 2013 against Defendant Martinrea International Inc. ("Martinrea International"). See Dkt. No. 1. On May 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding Martinrea Heavy Stampings, Inc. ("Martinrea Stampings") as an additional Defendant in this dispute. See Dkt. No.
8. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff contends that both Martinrea International and Martinrea Stampings (collectively "Martinrea" or "Defendants") are liable for breach of contract, or, in the alternative, liable in equity under the theory of promissory estoppel. Id.
On June 17, 2013, Defendant Martinrea Stampings filed a counterclaim against Gonzalez for breach of contract. See Dkt. No. 201. On November 17, 2014, this Court entered an Order Denying Martinrea's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Gonzalez's Motion for Summary Judgment. See Gonzalez Prod. Sys., Inc. v. Martinrea Int'l Inc., No. 13-cv-11544, 2014 WL 6455592, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 17, 2014). Presently before the Court is Martinrea's Motion for Limited Reconsideration and Relief Concerning this Court's Summary Judgment Order as to Promissory Estoppel, Only. See Dkt. No. 120.
Gonzalez requested an opportunity to file a Response to Martinrea's Motion. See Dkt. No. 121. The Court granted that request and provided Martinrea an opportunity to file a Reply in accordance with the local rules. See Dkt. No. 123. The Response was filed on December 26, 2014, and the Reply was filed on January 2, 2015. See Dkt. Nos. 144, 151. The Court has had an opportunity to thoroughly examine this matter. For the reasons stated below, the Court will DENY Martinrea's Motion for Reconsideration.
Two findings from this Court's November 17, 2014 Order are relevant to the present Motion. First, with respect to the breach of contract claim, this Court found that a question of fact exists with respect to whether Martinrea breached the "Customer to Supply Items" provision of the agreement between the Parties. Gonzalez Prod. Sys., Inc., 2014 WL 6455592, at *7-8. Specifically, the Court stated:
Plaintiff maintains that the equipment provided by Defendant was not functional, as agreed upon by both parties, and that there is voluminous evidence and witness testimony demonstrating that Defendants breached their contractual responsibilities to supply and maintain the robots and related equipment necessary for Plaintiff to perform its work.... Given the competing and contradictory facts, the Court finds that a question of fact exist with respect to whether the Defendants breached the contract.
Id. at *8. With respect to the promissory estoppel claim, this Court found that a question of fact exists with respect to whether there was a promise on which Gonzalez reasonably relied. Id. at *9. With respect to this finding, the Court stated that the Plaintiffs:
[A]lleged multiple purported instances of promises upon which they relied on a promise by Defendants.... Given the factual dispute regarding whether there was a clear and definite promise about the functionality of the robots, the Court finds that a question of fact exist for the jury to determine if there was in fact a clear and definite promise.
Id. at *9. Relying on these statements, amongst others, the Court denied Martinrea's Motion for Summary Judgment.
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
A. Standard of ...