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.

Options Home Health of North Florida, Inc. v. Nurses Registry and Home Health Corporation

United States District Court, Sixth Circuit

May 24, 2013

OPTIONS HOME HEALTH OF NORTH FLORIDA, INC., BRIAN VIRGO, and JOSH GOODE, Plaintiffs,
v.
NURSES REGISTRY AND HOME HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

JOSEPH M. HOOD, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motions to reconsider [D.E. 118, 119] the May 6, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order [D.E. 111] addressing the parties' crossmotions for summary judgment. Plaintiff has responded [D.E. 120, 121] and Defendant has timely replied [D.E. 122, 123], pursuant to this Court's briefing schedule [D.E. 117]. Thus, these motions are now ripe for review.

As described more fully below, Defendant's Motion to Reconsider the Court's Use of the Term "Unnecessary Services" [D.E. 118] will be granted, and Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Various Rulings [D.E. 119] will be granted in part and denied in part. As a result of these rulings, the Court shall file, contemporaneously herewith, an Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order amending its May 6, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order [D.E. 111].

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"[C]ourts will find justification for reconsidering interlocutory orders whe[re] there is (1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't v. Hotels.com, L.P., 590 F.3d 381, 389 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare, 89 Fed.App'x. 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004)). The motion does not serve as "an opportunity to re-argue a case." Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, a party should not use this motion "to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before judgment issued." Id. (quoting FDIC v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992)).

ANALYSIS

I. Nurses Registry's request for reconsideration and correction of the $75, 000 payment.

In its motion, Defendant points out that the Court mistakenly noted in a footnote that Plaintiff Goode was entitled to receive a $65, 000 salary in addition to a $75, 000 severance payment upon his departure. [D.E. 111 at 3]. Defendant notes that, under the APA, the $75, 000 was classified as part of the purchase price, and was payable to Options, not Goode individually. [D.E. 119 at 2]. Specifically, the APA states that "Buyer shall pay to Seller the remaining Seventy-Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($75, 000.00) upon the discharge of Joshua Goode from the Buyer's employment." [D.E. 119 at 2].

The Court agrees that it made a mistake when it stated that the $75, 000 was payable directly to Goode; indeed, under the APA, the $75, 000 was payable to the Seller, which, in the APA, is defined as Options. [D.E. 101-1 at 2]. Accordingly, the language in the Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order has been modified to reflect this change pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), which allows a court to correct a mistake that arises from "oversight or omission." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a).

However, this change does not affect the Court's analysis in the slightest. The Court never made a determination in its Opinion that Defendant was obligated to pay $75, 000 to Plaintiff Goode. Rather, because Plaintiffs originally included Defendant's failure to pay the $75, 000 as grounds for their unjust enrichment claim in their Complaint [D.E. 1 at 13], and because the parties consistently represented throughout their briefs that this $75, 000 was a "severance fee" owed upon Goode's departure, [1] the Court pondered whether the $75, 000, in addition to the $65, 000 salary, was the amount originally estimated by the parties to be the reasonable value of Goode's services. However, the Court made no concrete determination as to the reasonable value of Goode's services, as this is an issue that remains for trial. In fact, the Court explicitly pointed out in its Opinion that if the $75, 000 does not represent the reasonable value of Goode's services, then Plaintiffs will not be entitled to recover it. [D.E. 111 at 25-26]. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to reconsider this issue is denied.

II. Nurses Registry's request for reconsideration and correction of the denial of Defendant's Motion to Amend and granting of summary judgment on Counts II & III of the counterclaim.

This Court relied, in part, on the fact that the parties had not entered into the APA as of July 1, 2009, in its decision to deny Defendant leave to amend its counterclaim. [D.E. 111 at 13]. Defendant helpfully points out that this Court misspoke. In fact, as the Court had previously, correctly noted elsewhere in the record, the parties entered into the APA in June 2009 but set other events in the transaction for after July 1, 2009. [D.E. 50 at 2-3; D.E. 111 at 2]. As a mistake resulting from oversight or omission, the Court has the authority to correct this language under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a), and will do so in its Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order.

Defendant also requests that this Court reconsider its denial of leave to amend the counterclaim in light of this corrected statement-a request which this Court hereby grants. However, upon reconsideration, Defendant's request to amend the counterclaim is still denied. The timing of the APA was but one factor originally considered by this Court in its denial of the amendment to the counterclaim. The remaining grounds for its decision-specifically, that no good cause for delay was demonstrated, that the amendment would be prejudicial, and that the amendment was futile as a matter of law based on Defendant's failure to show justifiable reliance-still apply. Thus, the above-referenced correction does not alter this Court's decision to deny Defendant leave to amend the counterclaim, as evidenced by this Court's analysis in the Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order, entered this date.

Defendant further requests that this Court reconsider its decision to grant Plaintiffs summary judgment on the counterclaim. Because the correction noted above does not alter this Court's decision to deny leave to amend the counterclaim, and because the Court did not rely on the timing of the APA in its analysis of summary judgment on the counterclaim, the Court ...


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.