Jesa Enterprises Ltd. v. Thermoflex Corp.
268 F. Supp. 3d 968
E.D. Mich.2017Background
- Jesa Enterprises (plaintiff) was a manufacturer’s sales representative for Thermo-flex (defendant); dispute centers on whether Jesa is owed post-termination commissions for the “life of the part.”
- Parties agree an oral agreement governed their relationship but dispute its terms and whether life-of-the-part commissions were implied.
- Plaintiff proffered expert Terrence A. Barr to testify about industry custom/practice; defendant proffered experts Roger E. Rickey and Donald E. Rose as rebuttal experts.
- The experts all have long experience in the automotive supply/representative market and submitted reports and depositions addressing industry practice regarding post-termination commissions.
- The parties filed cross-motions to strike expert testimony; court applied Rule 702/Daubert gatekeeping to assess relevance, reliability, and whether experts may opine on ultimate legal issues.
- Court concluded experts are qualified to explain industry customs/practices but may not give opinions deciding the case (i.e., whether plaintiff is entitled to commissions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony on industry custom/practice | Barr is qualified by experience to explain customary life-of-the-part practices | Experts’ bases (anecdotal experience, limited document review) are insufficient under Rule 702 | Admissible: all three may testify about industry customs/practices |
| Reliance/factual fit of experts’ opinions | Barr’s industry opinion fits this case and is helpful to jury | Barr relied mainly on pleadings and generalized experience, not case-specific facts | Barr’s industry-practice testimony admissible; his conclusion that plaintiff is entitled to commissions is not (insufficient factual fit) |
| Qualifications of defendant’s experts (Rickey, Rose) | Rickey and Rose lack relevant experience with oral agreements; unreliable | Both have long automotive experience and may testify about industry practice regardless of contract form | Qualified to testify on customs/practices; credibility/weight for jury to decide |
| Experts stating ultimate legal conclusion (who should prevail) | Experts may state conclusions based on experience that the plaintiff should recover | Such testimony invades the jury’s role and states legal conclusions | Not allowed: experts may not opine on entitlement; may only explain customs/practices |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (trial court gatekeeping on expert reliability)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (expert reliability standard applies to non-scientific experts)
- First Tenn. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Barreto, 268 F.3d 319 (industry-experience testimony explaining customs may not be amenable to traditional Daubert analysis)
- Balsley v. LFP, Inc., 691 F.3d 747 (issues raised first in reply brief not properly before the court)
- Lee v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 760 F.3d 523 (expert testimony must "fit" the facts of the case to be relevant)
- Hyland v. HomeServices of Am., Inc., 771 F.3d 310 (expert may not testify to legal conclusions)
- Berry v. City of Detroit, 25 F.3d 1342 (court may exclude testimony that states legal conclusions)
- Woods v. Lecureux, 110 F.3d 1215 (expert testimony that tells jury what result to reach is not helpful)
- Reed v. Kurdziel, 352 Mich. 287 (state precedent recognizing life-of-the-part agreements)