UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALERIS ALUMINUM CANADA L.P. and

ALERIS ALUMINUM KOBLENZ GmbH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VALEO, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

VALEO, INC.,

Counter-Plaintiff,

v.

ALERIS ALUMINUM CANADA L.P.,

Counter-Defendant.

________________________________/

Case No. 09-10490

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

OPINION AND ORDER

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on May 4, 2010.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Aleris Aluminum Canada L.P. and Aleris Aluminum Koblenz GmbH filed this lawsuit

alleging various contract related claims against Valeo, Inc. (“Valeo”) on February 9, 2009.

On April 2, 2009, Aleris Aluminum Koblenz GmbH voluntarily dismissed its claims. On

April 6, 2009, Valeo filed an answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims against Aleris

Aluminum Canada L.P. (“Aleris”). Presently before the Court is Valeo’s Motion for Leave
1

As discussed in more detail below, there is also a motion for summary judgment filed by

Aleris pending before the Court. That motion will be resolved by a separate opinion and order.

2

to Amend Counterclaims.1

In its filing on April 6, 2009, Valeo asserted counterclaims alleging breach of contract,

breach of contract implied in fact, and promissory estoppel. These counterclaims are based,

in part, on Valeo’s assertion that its business relationship with Aleris was governed by a set

of terms and conditions accepted by Aleris. (See Counterclaims ¶ 6.) Valeo believes that its

counterclaim allegations provide sufficient notice of its claim that Aleris breached the terms

and conditions so as to allow Valeo to seek recovery for a breach of § 5.5 of the terms and

conditions. During the course of the litigation, however, Aleris has purportedly challenged

the existence of a counterclaim based specifically on § 5.5. For this reason, Valeo filed the

present motion to amend “out of an abundance of caution.” (Mot. to Amend at 1.)

In response to Valeo’s motion, Aleris indicates that it does not oppose the proposed

amendment so long as the Court precludes Valeo from re-opening discovery based on the

amendment; decides, without additional delay, Aleris’s motion for summary judgment filed

on January 15, 2010; and allows Aleris to file a second motion for summary judgment

addressing the amendment to the counterclaims. Valeo has stipulated that it will not seek to

re-open discovery and agrees that Aleris should be afforded an opportunity to challenge any

amendment. Nonetheless, Valeo requests that the Court delay resolution of Aleris’s

previously filed motion for summary judgment until Aleris submits supplemental briefing

on the amendment. Valeo asserts that the issues that will be raised in a second motion for

summary judgment cannot be decided independently from the issues in the previously filed
3

motion.

Given Aleris’s conditional willingness to allow amendment and Valeo’s agreement not

to delay the case with additional discovery, the Court grants Valeo’s motion to amend.

Having briefly reviewed Aleris’s previously filed motion for summary judgment, the Court

concludes that there is no reason to delay a decision on that motion. In the event Aleris

believes that a second motion for summary judgment remains necessary after resolution of

the first, Aleris may file a second motion within fourteen (14) days of the Court’s opinion

on the first. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Valeo’s Motion for Leave to Amend Counterclaims is

GRANTED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Sarah C. Lindsey, Esq.

Daniel W. Linna, Jr., Esq.

Edward T. Sable, Esq.