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.

3Cems v. Perceptron, Inc.

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

March 30, 2017

3CEMS, Plaintiff,
v.
PERCEPTRON, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 43)

          Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Perceptron Inc. (“Perceptron”), 3Cems, and non-party Odyssey Electronics, Inc. entered into a supply agreement (“Agreement”) for a project called “OS6.”

         3Cems filed a single-count breach of contract complaint against Perceptron, alleging that Perceptron breached the Agreement and the Guarantee Letter when it failed to pay for ordered component parts. Perceptron says that 3Cems has no right to sue it, since its suppliers - and not 3Cems - purchased the units.

         3Cems and Perceptron filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On December 20, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part 3Cems' motion, and denied Perception's Motion for Summary Judgment.

         Perceptron now asks the Court to reconsider its entire order. Specifically, Perceptron says the Court made several errors concerning:

1. The separateness of 3Cems and its affiliates;
2. The number of units covered by the purchase order at issue;
3. The lack of genuine issues of material fact concerning Paul Eckoff's authority to bind Perceptron to the Guarantee Letter;
4. The applicability of every argument Perceptron raised concerning the Guarantee Letter; and,
5. The Tolling Agreement and whether it pertained to Perceptron's statute of limitations defense.

         Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) guides the Court in its review of Perceptron's motion:

Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the court will not grant motions for ... reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.

E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Palpable defects are those which are “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Mich. Dep't of Treasury v. Michalec, ...


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.