Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

American Furukawa, Inc. v. Hossain

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

October 25, 2016

American Furukawa, Inc. Plaintiff,
v.
Isthihar Hossain and HT Wire & Cable Americas, LLC, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION AND/OR CLARIFICATION [141]

          HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN United States District Court Judge.

         I. Introduction

         On June 23, 2016, this Court entered an Order on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment [138], granting in part the Defendants Hossain and HT Wire Cable Americas, LLC's (“Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment [117] and denying Plaintiff American Furukawa, Inc.'s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Summary Judgment [119]. On July 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Reconsideration. For reasons given below, the Court DENIES the Plaintiff's Motion.

         II. Factual Background

         On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Complaint [1] against former employee, Defendant Hossain. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged eight Counts: (1) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030; (2) fraud; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) misappropriation of trade secrets under Mich. Comp. Laws §445.1902; (6) conversion; (7) tortious interference; and (8) civil conspiracy.

         On April 19, 2016, the Defendant and Plaintiff filed cross Motions for Summary Judgment. The Court partially granted the Defendants' Motion, dismissing the Plaintiff's conversion claim, and denied Plaintiff's Motion. American Furukawa, Inc. v. Isthihar Hossain, HT Wire & Cable Americas, LLC, No. 14-cv-13633, 2016 WL 3444079 (E.D. Mich. June 23, 2016). The Plaintiff now moves the Court to reconsider denial of summary judgment on Plaintiff's CFAA claim, denial of its contract claim, and dismissal of its conversion claim.

         III. Legal Standard

         The Court cannot grant a motion for reconsideration which merely presents the same issues the Court already ruled on. LR 7.1(h)(3)(E.D. Mich. July 1, 2013). Additionally, a movant must demonstrate a palpable defect in the opinion or order under attack and that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. Id.; Indah v. U.S. S.E.C., 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir. 2011). “A ‘palpable defect' is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Hawkins v. Genesys Health Systems, 704 F.Supp.2d 688, 709 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (quoting Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F.Supp.2d 714, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2001)). A motion for reconsideration that merely presents “the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication” shall be denied. Hence v. Smith, 49 F.Supp.2d 547, 551 (E.D.Mich.1999)).

         IV. Discussion

         A. CFAA Claim

         The Plaintiff first contends that the Court erred in denying summary judgment on the Plaintiff's CFAA claim. See Dkt. No. 141 at 1-2 (Pg. ID No. 3570-71). Plaintiff contends that the Court erred when it declined to consider evidence attached to the Plaintiff's Response [125] to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. See Dkt. No. 138 at 17-18 (Pg. ID No. 3518-19). This argument is without merit.

         Concerning summary judgment, a movant bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine dispute as to a material fact, and all inferences should be made in favor of a non-movant. Hardenburg v. Dunham's Athleisure Corp., 963 F.Supp.2d 693, 699 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) (providing “a party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record[.]”). Further, a court “need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3).

         The Plaintiff fails to cite any authority requiring the Court to consider evidence extrinsic to a motion for summary judgment. Indeed, the Court was obligated only to consider any cited evidence filed with the Plaintiff's own motion when determining whether Plaintiff had met its initial burden. Hardenburg, 963 F.Supp.2d at 699; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3). Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment merely cites interrogatories. The Court determined such interrogatories did not constitute “documents detailing expenses.” American Furukawa, 2016 WL 3444079 at *8.

         The Court did not, and was not required to, consider any evidence attached to Plaintiff's other filings. Absent a compelling reason to liberally construe Rule 56(c)(3), the Court finds no palpable defect in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.