Fmd Restoration, Inc. v. Baistar Mechanical, Inc.
320 F.R.D. 320
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- FMD Restoration sued Baistar Mechanical for breach of contract; Baistar counterclaimed for breach and tortious interference. Case tried in a four-day bench trial; post-trial findings issued June 21, 2016.
- The court found FMD materially breached the subcontract but determined Baistar failed to prove actual damages by a preponderance of the evidence; only nominal damages were awarded to Baistar.
- Baistar moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) and Rule 59(a)(2) to amend findings and judgment, seeking $135,717.10 for payments to Mega Construction as actual damages.
- Baistar relied principally on testimony of its owner, Hung Ku Jun, arguing that Mega Construction’s replacement work and materials were within the scope of FMD’s subcontract and thus recoverable.
- FMD opposed, contending Baistar’s trial evidence was inconsistent and insufficient, that no new evidence or change in law supported reconsideration, and that Baistar could have called Mega Construction or Dominion Millwork at trial.
- The magistrate judge denied Baistar’s motion, concluding Baistar failed to show manifest error or newly available evidence and that the motion improperly sought to relitigate trial findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should amend findings under Rule 52(b) and judgment under Rule 59(a)(2) | Baistar: trial testimony (Jun) shows Mega Construction performed replacement work within FMD’s subcontract scope; court erred in requiring more evidence | FMD: no change in law or new evidence; Jun’s testimony had inconsistencies; Baistar failed to meet burden at trial | Denied — Baistar did not show manifest error or grounds for relief under Rules 52/59 |
| Whether payments to Mega Construction are recoverable damages because work was within FMD’s contractual scope | Baistar: payments to Mega Construction are actual damages and should be added to judgment ($135,717.10) | FMD: Baistar failed to prove by preponderance that FMD was contractually required to provide millwork/fire doors; evidence conflicted | Denied — court previously found conflicting record and insufficient proof that work was within subcontract scope |
| Whether the court should reopen the case to take additional testimony from Mega Construction or Dominion Millwork | Baistar: requests reopening to corroborate Jun and payment docs | FMD: those witnesses were available at trial and Baistar offers no reason they were not called earlier; Rule 59 not for introducing available evidence post-judgment | Denied — reopening improper because evidence was available at trial and motion seeks a second chance to litigate |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (Rule 59’s purpose is not to introduce new evidence post-trial)
- Salazar v. District of Columbia, 685 F. Supp. 2d 72 (post-trial motions may not relitigate issues or present evidence available at trial)
- Bigwood v. Defense Intelligence Agency, 770 F. Supp. 2d 315 (Rule 52 permits correction of manifest errors but is discretionary)
- Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, 640 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (Rule 59 is not a vehicle to present evidence available at trial)
- Barnes v. Alves, 304 F.R.D. 363 (courts should be reluctant to revisit earlier decisions absent manifest injustice)
- United States v. Western Elec. Co., Inc., 690 F. Supp. 22 (limitations on reopening judgment and presenting new evidence)
- W.C. & A.N. Miller Cos. v. United States, 173 F.R.D. 1 (Rule 59(e) cannot be used to present arguments that could have been made earlier)