United States District Court, D. Minnesota
C. Hennigan, Esq., William Z. Pentelovitch, Esq., and Sarah
A. Horstmann, Esq., Maslon LLP, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge
for a ruling on the damages claim of Plaintiff LEI Packaging,
LLC (“LEI”). After being granted Default Judgment
[Docket No. 135] against Defendant Samey ehf
(“Samey”), LEI's earlier request for damages
was denied as premature. See Mem. Op. Order [Docket
No. 155]. The claims against Hedinn are now resolved, and for
the reasons set forth below, LEI's renewed request for
damages against Samey is granted.
seeks judgment against Samey in the amount of $4, 454, 873.43
for damages related to LEI's purchase of a Rotary Quattro
TO Pulp Moulding Machine (the “Machine”). This is
LEI's second effort to secure a money judgment against
Samey after Default Judgment was entered against Samey on
November 17, 2016. In a March 22, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and
Order [Docket No. 155], the Court denied as premature
LEI's initial attempt to obtain a sum certain judgment
because co-Defendant Hedinn Ltd. (“Hedinn”)
remained an active participant in the case.
April 11, 2017, LEI agreed to dismiss all claims against
Hedinn. See Stipulation [Docket No. 156]. Now, with
Hedinn's case resolved, LEI renews its motion seeking
judgment against Samey.
Samey's History in this Lawsuit
Samey's Dismissal Motions are Denied
was named in the original lawsuit LEI filed on April 20, 2015
in Minnesota state court. See Compl. [Docket No.
1-1]. On July 17, 2015, Samey (and Hedinn) filed the first of
three motions to dismiss. See Mot. Dismiss [Docket
No. 18]. This Motion was made moot by the Amended Complaint
[Docket No. 30] LEI filed on August 7, 2015.
Defendant Emery Silfurtun Inc. (“Emery”) agreed
to arbitrate their claims, but Samey and Hedinn refused to
participate in arbitration. In response, LEI served upon
Samey and Hedinn the Amended Complaint and Demand for
Arbitration, seeking an order compelling Samey and Hedinn to
participate in arbitration. Samey's (and Hedinn's)
second Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 34] followed, which
prompted LEI to file a Motion to Compel Arbitration [Docket
No. 41]. On December 22, 2015, both Motions were denied.
See Mem. Op. Order [Docket No. 56].
then sought to stay proceedings pending the resolution of the
ongoing arbitration between LEI and Emery. See
Letter [Docket No. 61]. That too was denied. See
Letter [Docket No. 64].
February 23, 2016, LEI filed its Second Amended Complaint
[Docket No. 66], alleging that Samey designed, manufactured,
and planned the installation of the electrical controls for
the Machine. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 37. LEI further alleged
that a Samey employee served as the “Project
Manager” for the Machine, and that Samey was directly
responsible for problems with the Machine's robotic
transfer system. Id. ¶¶ 21, 39, 48. Based
upon these and other allegations, LEI asserted third-party
beneficiary claims against Samey for breaching its contract
with Emery to design, manufacture, install, and maintain the
Machine as required by its contract with Emery. Id.
¶¶ 58-62. LEI also asserted direct claims against
Samey for breaches of the implied warranties of
merchantability and for fitness for a particular purpose.
Id. ¶¶ 63-73.
March 15, 2016, Samey (and Hedinn) filed a Motion to Dismiss
[Docket No. 79] the Second Amended Complaint. Samey argued
that 1) the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Samey, 2)
Minnesota was an improper venue, 3) there was no basis for
joint and several liability, and 4) the Second Amended
Complaint failed to state plausible causes of action. On
August 16, 2016, Samey's third Motion to Dismiss was
denied in its entirety. See Mem. Op. Order [Docket
Samey Does Not Defend the Case
September 8, 2016, counsel for Samey informed LEI's
counsel that Samey would not answer the Second Amended
Complaint. Hennigan Decl. [Docket No. 120] ¶ 11. On
September 9, 2016, counsel for Samey filed a Motion to
Withdraw [Docket No. 113]. The motion was granted on October
11, 2016. See Order [Docket No. 132].
September 15, 2016, LEI Applied for Entry of Default [Docket
No. 119], which the Clerk of Court entered on September 26,
2016. See Entry Default [Docket No. 122].
LEI's Damages Claims Against Samey
there are three defendants in this case, LEI contends that
Samey bears responsibility for the majority of the
Machine's failures. LEI bases its contention on
Samey's extensive involvement with the project overall,
as well as Samey's exclusive responsibility for
significant components of the Machine that failed to perform
History of Emery and ...