UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ADIL SHAFI, 

 Counter-Plaintiff, 

v. Case No: 09-10454 

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

BRAINTECH, INC., 

 Counter-Defendant. 

BRAINTECH, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF TO ADIL SHAFI’S RESPONSE 

TO BRAINTECH’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A 

MATTER OF LAW OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR NEW TRIAL

PROOF OF SERVICE

Anne Widlak (P35763) 

Susan D. Koval (P59297) 

Attorneys for Braintech, Inc. 

200 Talon Centre Drive, Suite 200 

Detroit, Michigan 48207 

(313) 567-5921

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 166 Filed 09/03/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 3487
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................1 

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................3 

 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 166 Filed 09/03/13 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 3488
INTRODUCTION

 In Adil Shafi’s Response Brief, just like at trial, he offers nothing more than subjective, 

conclusory opinions that are not legally sufficient evidence upon which a jury verdict must be 

based. Additionally, Shafi misses the point when he suggests that the jury verdict reflects that the 

jury believed Shafi and disbelieved Rick Weidinger. The jury’s verdict must be based on factual 

evidence, not opinion and subjective beliefs. Shafi concedes, as he must, that he did not rebut 

Mr. Weidinger’s testimony. (Response Brief, p.4) Thus, the jury had no evidentiary basis to 

disbelieve Mr. Weidinger. 

 To be clear, however, Braintech, Inc. (“Braintech”) agrees wholeheartedly with 

Subheading I of Shafi’s Argument on page 7 of his Response Brief: 

THE UNCONTRADICTED RECORD EVIDENCE COMPELS 

REASONABLE PERSONS TO REACH ONE CONCLUSION, THAT IS, 

THAT BRAINECH HAD GOOD CAUSE TO TERMINATE SHAFI’S 

EMPLOYMENT.

With this concession alone, Braintech’s Motion should be granted; therefore, this Reply Brief 

will be short and to the point and avoid duplicating the arguments Braintech previously presented 

in its original Brief. 

ARGUMENT

I. Shafi Did Not Produce Legally Sufficient Evidence To Support The Jury’s Finding. 

The ultimate question is whether Shafi produced legally sufficient evidence to support the 

jury’s finding that Braintech did not have good cause to terminate his employment. The burden 

of proof remained at all times with Shafi. The jury was asked to determine based on the evidence 

produced at trial: “Did Plaintiff, Adil Shafi, prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 166 Filed 09/03/13 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 3489
2 

Defendant, Braintech, Inc., did not have good cause to terminate his employment.” 

What “evidence” did Shafi produce at trial? He produced: 1) the employment agreement; 

and 2) his own subjective and conclusory opinions (which are not legally sufficient evidence). In 

his Response Brief, Shafi simply regurgitates these same subjective and conclusory opinions. 

Shafi’s only “argument” (starting on bottom of page 7 of his Response) in response to 

Braintech’s evidence consists of quoting the “Good Cause” definition found in Paragraph 12(a) 

of the Employment Agreement and concluding “the jury found that there was no good cause to 

terminate.” It is plainly evident that Shafi offered no facts at trial or in his Response Brief to 

support the jury’s conclusion. Shafi did not point to any testimony or single piece of evidence 

that proves Braintech did not have good cause to terminate his employment. 

The testimony that Shafi highlights in his Response Brief is nothing more than subjective, 

conclusory opinions. For example, defense counsel’s opening statement is not evidence. (See 

Jury Instruction 103.30, “Statements and arguments by the lawyers are not evidence.”) The fact 

that Shafi did not agree with defense counsel’s statements is not evidence. Shafi has not and 

cannot identify sufficient evidence in the record for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in his 

favor. 

II. Unlike Shafi, Braintech Provided The Jury With Facts That Compel A Reasonable 

Person To Reach Only One Conclusion—Shafi Was Terminated For Good Cause. 

In contrast to Shafi’s conclusory presentation, Braintech produced overwhelming 

evidence (outlined in Braintech’s original Brief and largely uncontested by Shafi) which proves 

Braintech had good cause to terminate Shafi’s employment. Unlike Shafi, Braintech provided the 

jury with facts to support its case. In fact, Braintech provided the jury with facts that were 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 166 Filed 09/03/13 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 3490
3 

unrefuted by Shafi, a few of which are highlighted below: 

• Shafi, a corporate officer, refused to attend a crucial Board meeting regarding 

corporate financial reports despite his knowledge that Braintech was in financial 

peril. Tr.II.75-78; Def.Ex.243. 

• Shafi refused to participate in critical meetings, work, or travel until Braintech 

agreed to pay a medical bill that was not covered by his health insurance. Tr.II.15-

17, 27; Def.Ex.109, 304. 

• Shafi refused to provide requested input to the October 6, 2008 report comparing 

the Reliabot product and Braintech’s eVF robotic vision technology product. He 

admitted that one of his primary duties was technology development and these 

two products were the only revenue stream for the company. Tr.31-32; Tr.II.10-

11, 38; Def.Ex.316. 

• Shafi made material misrepresentations about the Reliabot product to potential 

Braintech customers. Tr.II.66; Def.Ex.279. 

• Shafi was dishonest about Reliabot’s ability to work on robots and dishonest 

about the revenue readiness of Reliabot. Tr.II.63-64; Def.Ex.279. 

• Shafi did not generate one penny of revenue the entire time he worked at 

Braintech. Tr.25. 

The jury verdict and the final judgment entered on the verdict should be vacated because 

the verdict was not based on legally sufficient evidence, and judgment should be entered in favor 

of Braintech. 

CONCLUSION

 WHEREFORE, Braintech respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant its 

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, for New Trial and enter an Order 

directing the entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of Braintech with a conditional ruling 

that Braintech is entitled to a new trial. 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 166 Filed 09/03/13 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 3491
4 

 Respectfully submitted, 

NEMETH BURWELL, P.C. 

By: s/Susan D. Koval 

 Anne Widlak (P35763) 

 Susan D. Koval (P59297) 

Attorneys for Braintech, Inc. 

 200 Talon Centre Drive, Suite 200 

 Detroit, Michigan 48207 

 (313) 567-5921 

 awidlak@nemethburwell.com 

 skoval@nemethburwell.com 

September 3, 2013 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 166 Filed 09/03/13 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 3492
PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 3, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing paper 

(Braintech Inc.’s Reply Brief to Adil Shafi’s Response to Braintech’s Renewed Motion for 

Judgment as a Matter of Law Or, in the Alternative, for New Trial) with the Clerk of the Court 

using the ECF system, which will send notification of such filing and service of such documents 

to all parties via their counsel of record at the e-mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of 

Electronic Filing receipt. 

s/Susan D. Koval

Susan D. Koval (P59297) 

NEMETH BURWELL, PC 

Attorney for Braintech, Inc. 

200 Talon Centre Drive, Suite 200 

Detroit, Michigan 48207 

(313) 567-5921 

skoval@nemethburwell.com 

P59297 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 166 Filed 09/03/13 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 3493