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.

Crestwood Membranes, Inc. v. Constant Services, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

May 1, 2017

CRESTWOOD MEMBRANES, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
CONSTANT SERVICES, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Robert L. Mariani United States District Judge

         I. Introduction

         Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. 110), which asks the Court to reconsider its Opinion dated March 22, 2017, (Doc. 107), and accompanying Order, (Doc. 108), in which the Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in part and denied it in part. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the Motion for Reconsideration.

         II. Procedural History

         On March 17, 2015, Plaintiff, Crestwood Membranes, Inc., d/b/a i2M ("i2M"), filed a Complaint against Defendant, Constant Services, Inc. ("CSI"). The Complaint stemmed from a business relationship in the pool liner industry and alleged four causes of action: Count I, "Copyright Infringement;" Count II, "Breach of Contract;" Count III, "Breach of Warranty;" and Count IV, "Negligence in Performance of Contract." (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 30-48). On December 24, 2015, i2M moved for summary judgment on the copyright infringement claim. (Doc. 23). A Report and Recommendation ("R&R") was issued by Magistrate Judge Carlson. (Doc. 95). The R&R recommended that this Court deny i2M's motion on the basis that disputes of fact remain about the availability of certain defenses that may insulate CSI from liability. (Id. at 21-22). Over i2M's objections, this Court adopted the R&R in full and denied i2M's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Doc. 104).

         On May 31, 2016, CSI moved for summary judgment on all four of i2M's claims. (Doc. 56). Magistrate Judge Carlson issued an R&R on CSI's motion that made two recommendations. First, consistent with the prior R&R on i2M's motion, the R&R on CSI's motion recommended denying summary judgment with respect to the copyright infringement claim. (Doc. 96 at 28). Second, after finding that i2M's filings failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1, the R&R recommended that this Court postpone ruling on CSI's motion with respect to the fading and seam separation claims, strike i2M's Response to CSI's motion, and order i2M to file a new response that complies with the local rules. (Id. at 29).

         In an Opinion dated March 22, 2017, this Court noted that neither party objected to the R&R's recommendation to deny CSI's motion with respect to the copyright infringement claim. (Doc. 107 at 2). The Court, therefore, reviewed the recommendation for clear error and manifest injustice, adopted it, and denied CSI's motion on that claim. (Id.). The Court, however, declined adopting the R&R's second recommendation. (Id.). Instead, the Court deemed admitted any statement in i2M's original Response to CSI's Statement of Material Facts, (Doc. 72), which did not rely by citation on evidence in the record at the time that the briefing on the summary judgment motion was completed.[1] (Id. at 4). The Court then addressed the merits of CSI's arguments. (Id. at 6-17).

         In addressing the merits, the Court found that there were genuine issues of material facts that prevented entry of summary judgment on the fading and seam separation claims, Counts II and IV. The Court reasoned as follows:

As CSI admits, "[w]ith regard to issues of fading and seam separation, Mr. Hackett testified that it was CSI's printing practices, and them alone, that led to those issues for end use customers." (Doc. 57 at ¶ 82). Indeed, Mr. Hackett testified that "[b]ased on the third-party testing we have done, based on the experts we have in-house, " i2M determined that the seam separation and fading issues were the result of CSI's printing. (Doc. 57-3 at 33-34). CSI goes on to argue that this contention is otherwise unsupported in the record and that the problem was actually due to i2M's vinyl. (Doc. 57 at ¶¶ 83-87). In essence, however, this is an attempt by CSI to get this Court to make a credibility determination as to the testimony of Mr. Hackett and weigh the evidence. But, as this Court has often noted, on summary judgment "'the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.'" Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC, 716 F.3d 764, 772 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000)); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Consequently, the Court will deny CSI's Motion for Summary Judgment on this basis.

Crestwood Membranes, Inc. v. Constant Servs., Inc., 2017 WL 1088089, at *4 (M.D. Pa. 2017). The Court did, however, dismiss Plaintiff's breach of warranty claim, Count III, as that claim was barred as a matter of law because CSI was not a "merchant" or a seller of "goods" under Article 2 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code. Id. at *6-*8.

         CSI now moves for reconsideration of this Court's Opinion and Order, arguing that it did, in fact, object to the R&R's recommendation to deny summary judgment on the copyright claim. (Doc. 111 at 3-4). Accordingly, CSI requests that this Court grant CSI's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 56), in full. (Doc. 111 at 14).

         III. Standard of Review

         "The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Specifically, the motion is generally permitted only if (1) there is an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence becomes available that was not previously available at the time the Court issued its decision; or (3) to correct clear errors of law or fact or prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). Moreover, "motions for reconsideration should not be used to put forward arguments which the movant... could have made but neglected to make before judgment." United States v. Jasin, 292 F.Supp.2d 670, 677 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (quoting Reich v. Compton, 834 F.Supp.2d 753, 755 (E.D. Pa. 1993) rev'd in part and aff'd in part on other grounds, 57 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 1995)). Nor should they "be used as a means to reargue matters already argued and disposed of or as an attempt to relitigate a point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant." Donegan v. Livingston, 877 F.Supp.2d 212, 226 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (quoting Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226 F.Supp.2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002)).

         IV. ...


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.