-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

AMERICAN FURUKAWA, INC. 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ISTHIHAR HOSSAIN and 

HT WIRE & CABLE AMERICAS, LLC, 

Defendants. 

________________________________ /

Case No. 14-cv-13633 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION AND/OR 

CLARIFICATION [141] 

I. INTRODUCTION

 On June 23, 2016, this Court entered an Order on the parties’ cross-motions 

for summary judgment [138], granting in part the Defendants Hossain and HT Wire 

Cable Americas, LLC’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment [117] and 

denying Plaintiff American Furukawa, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Summary 

Judgment [119]. On July 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Reconsideration. For 

reasons given below, the Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion. 

4:14-cv-13633-SDD Doc # 161 Filed 10/25/16 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 4206
-2-

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Complaint [1] against former 

employee, Defendant Hossain. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged eight Counts: (1) 

violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030; (2) 

fraud; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) misappropriation of 

trade secrets under MICH. COMP. LAWS §445.1902; (6) conversion; (7) tortious 

interference; and (8) civil conspiracy. 

On April 19, 2016, the Defendant and Plaintiff filed cross Motions for 

Summary Judgment. The Court partially granted the Defendants’ Motion, 

dismissing the Plaintiff’s conversion claim, and denied Plaintiff’s Motion. American 

Furukawa, Inc. v. Isthihar Hossain, HT Wire & Cable Americas, LLC, No. 14-cv13633, 2016 WL 3444079 (E.D. Mich. June 23, 2016). The Plaintiff now moves the 

Court to reconsider denial of summary judgment on Plaintiff’s CFAA claim, denial 

of its contract claim, and dismissal of its conversion claim. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court cannot grant a motion for reconsideration which merely presents 

the same issues the Court already ruled on. LR 7.1(h)(3)(E.D. Mich. July 1, 2013). 

Additionally, a movant must demonstrate a palpable defect in the opinion or order 

under attack and that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the 

case. Id.; Indah v. U.S. S.E.C., 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir. 2011). “A ‘palpable 

4:14-cv-13633-SDD Doc # 161 Filed 10/25/16 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 4207
-3-

defect’ is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or 

plain.” Hawkins v. Genesys Health Systems, 704 F. Supp. 2d 688, 709 (E.D. Mich. 

2010) (quoting Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp. 2d 714, 718 

(E.D. Mich. 2001)). A motion for reconsideration that merely presents “the same 

issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication” shall 

be denied. Hence v. Smith, 49 F.Supp.2d 547, 551 (E.D.Mich.1999)).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. CFAA Claim 

The Plaintiff first contends that the Court erred in denying summary judgment 

on the Plaintiff’s CFAA claim. See Dkt. No. 141 at 1–2 (Pg. ID No. 3570–71). 

Plaintiff contends that the Court erred when it declined to consider evidence attached 

to the Plaintiff’s Response [125] to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 

See Dkt. No. 138 at 17–18 (Pg. ID No. 3518–19). This argument is without merit. 

Concerning summary judgment, a movant bears the initial burden of 

demonstrating the absence of any genuine dispute as to a material fact, and all 

inferences should be made in favor of a non-movant. Hardenburg v. Dunham’s 

Athleisure Corp., 963 F. Supp. 2d 693, 699 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (citing Celotex Corp. 

v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(A) (providing

“a party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the 

assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record[.]”). Further, a court 

4:14-cv-13633-SDD Doc # 161 Filed 10/25/16 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 4208
-4-

“need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the 

record.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(3). 

The Plaintiff fails to cite any authority requiring the Court to consider 

evidence extrinsic to a motion for summary judgment. Indeed, the Court was 

obligated only to consider any cited evidence filed with the Plaintiff’s own motion 

when determining whether Plaintiff had met its initial burden. Hardenburg, 963 F. 

Supp. 2d at 699; FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(3). Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

merely cites interrogatories. The Court determined such interrogatories did not 

constitute “documents detailing expenses.” American Furukawa, 2016 WL 3444079 

at *8. 

The Court did not, and was not required to, consider any evidence attached to 

Plaintiff’s other filings. Absent a compelling reason to liberally construe Rule 

56(c)(3), the Court finds no palpable defect in its denial of summary judgment on 

the Plaintiff’s CFAA claim. 

B. Contract Claim 

Plaintiff next contends the Court improperly denied Plaintiff’s claim as to 

liability for breach of contract where Plaintiff failed to prove damages. The Plaintiff 

contends it moved for summary judgment for its breach of contract action on liability 

alone and not on damages. See Dkt. No. 141 at 2 (Pg. ID No. 3571). This argument 

has no merit. 

4:14-cv-13633-SDD Doc # 161 Filed 10/25/16 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 4209
-5-

Plaintiff fails to cite any authority for bifurcating judgment on the elements of 

a breach of contract claim. For its sole precedent, Plaintiff cites Consolidated Coal 

Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am., Local Union No. 6869, 362 F. Supp. 1073, 1075 

(S.D. W.Va. 1973). This decision is not binding on this Court. 

The Plaintiff’s argument also opposes the vast body of common law providing 

breach of contract claims are inextricably linked to damages. See e.g. Fed. Deposit 

Ins. Corp. v. Fedorov, No. 10-11061, 2010 WL 2944569, at *4 (E.D. Mich. July 22, 

2010) (holding that under Michigan law, breach of contract claims must necessarily 

prove injury stemming from breach.). Thus, the Court finds no palpable defect in its 

denial of summary judgment where Plaintiff failed to prove damage stemming from 

Defendant Hossain’s breach. See Dkt. No. 138 at 25 (Pg. ID No. 3526). Accordingly, 

this argument fails. 

C. Conversion Claim 

Finally, the Plaintiff contends that the Court improperly dismissed the 

Plaintiff’s conversion claim in its Complaint. Specifically, the Plaintiff argues the 

Court improperly applied the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“MUTSA”) in 

determining that the Plaintiff’s conversion claim was preempted. See Id. at 13, 16–

17 (Pg. ID No. 3515, 3517–18). This argument fails. 

Rather than demonstrate a palpable defect by the Court, the Plaintiff’s Motion 

merely rejects the Court’s legal analysis. Specifically, the Plaintiff disputes this 

4:14-cv-13633-SDD Doc # 161 Filed 10/25/16 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 4210
-6-

Court’s adoption of the “arguably cognizable” standard for preemption of tort claims 

under MUTSA and proposes that claims based solely on the misappropriation of 

information, later shown to not be trade secrets, should not be displaced. 

The Plaintiff relies on inapposite authority in support of its argument. Plaintiff 

cites Combined Metals of Chicago Ltd. Partnership v. Airtek, Inc., 985 F. Supp. 827, 

830 (N.D. Ill. 1997) in support of a broader displacement standard. Plaintiff also 

cites McKesson Medical Surgical, Inc. v. Micro Bio-Medics, Inc., which held 

“MUTSA only preempts other civil remedies that involve trade secrets.” McKesson, 

266 F. Supp.2d 590, 600 (E.D. Mich. 2003). 

Combined Metals is unavailing to the Plaintiff. There, the court adopted a 

broader standard due largely to the plaintiff’s failure to appropriately contest 

displacement of the defendant’s counterclaims. Combined Metals, 985 F. Supp. at 

830 n 3. (finding “...the court does not believe a fiduciary relationship existed. But, 

because the issue was ignored by Combined Metals, the court will not inquire 

further.”) (emphasis added). Here, neither Party has committed a similar forfeiture. 

Nor does McKesson persuade. It is not clear under the holding in McKesson 

whether claims “arguably cognizable” under MUTSA are distinguishable from 

claims “involve[d] in trade secrets.” McKesson, 266 F. Supp. 2d at 600. Further, the 

McKesson standard is not dispositive on the issue. The McKesson court in dismissed 

4:14-cv-13633-SDD Doc # 161 Filed 10/25/16 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 4211
-7-

its plaintiff’s tort claim not on a theory of preemption, but for failure to provide 

evidence in the record. Id. 

The Court provided ample, unequivocal support for the “arguably cognizable” 

standard. American Furukawa, 2016 WL 3444079 at *5 (citing Dura Global 

Technologies, Inc. v. Magna Donnelly Corp., No. 07-10945, 2009 WL 3032594, *3 

(E.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2009); Bliss Clearing Niagra, Inc. v. Midwest Brake Bond Co., 

270 F. Supp.2d 943 (W.D. Mich. 2003); Easton Sports, Inc. v. Warrior Lacrosse, 

Inc., No. 05-cv-72031, 2005 WL 2234559, *1–3 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 14, 2005)). The 

Plaintiff fails to show how the Court’s adoption of the “arguably cognizable” 

standard is an “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain” defect. Hawkins, 

704 F. Supp. 2d at 709. 

Furthermore, the Plaintiff has not argued that the application of the Court’s 

standard was in any way erroneous. Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate 

a palpable defect in the Court’s reasoning on this claim as well. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 

[141] is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 25, 2016 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

Detroit, MI HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 United States District Court Judge

4:14-cv-13633-SDD Doc # 161 Filed 10/25/16 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 4212
-8-

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys 

of record on this date, October 25, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 /s/Tanya Bankston 

 Case Manager, (313) 234-5213 

4:14-cv-13633-SDD Doc # 161 Filed 10/25/16 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 4213