UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

************** 

ADIL SHAFI, Case No. 2:09-cv-10454 

 

 Counter-Plaintiff, Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

Vs. 

BRAINTECH, INC., 

 

 Counter-Defendant. 

____________________________________/ 

T. Michael Doyle (P12931) Ann Bagno Widlak (P35763) 

DOYLE & MALINZAK, P.C. Susan D. Koval (P59297) 

Attorney for Counter-Plaintiff NEMETH BURWELL 

45 Blue Star Highway Attorney for Counter-Defendant 

Douglas, Michigan 49406 200 Talon Centre Drive, Suite 200 

(269) 857-3111 Detroit, Michigan 48207-5199 

 (313) 576-5921 

_______________________________________________________________________/ 

COUNTER-PLAINTIFF ADIL SHAFI’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE HIS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO COUNTER-DEFENDANT 

BRAINTECH, INC.’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER 

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

COUNTER-PLAINTIFF ADIL SHAFI’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERPLAINTIFF ADIL SHAFI’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

HIS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO COUNTER-DEFENDANT BRAINTECH, 

INC.’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, OR, 

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR NEW TRIAL; 

ADIL SHAFI’S RESPONSE AND BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO BRAINTECH,

INC.’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, OR, 

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR NEW TRIAL

PROOF OF SERVICE

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 3452
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

************** 

ADIL SHAFI, Case No. 2:09-cv-10454 

 

 Counter-Plaintiff, Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

Vs. 

BRAINTECH, INC., 

 

 Counter-Defendant. 

____________________________________/ 

T. Michael Doyle (P12931) Ann Bagno Widlak (P35763) 

DOYLE & MALINZAK, P.C. Susan D. Koval (P59297) 

Attorney for Counter-Plaintiff NEMETH BURWELL 

45 Blue Star Highway Attorney for Counter-Defendant 

Douglas, Michigan 49406 200 Talon Centre Drive, Suite 200 

(269) 857-3111 Detroit, Michigan 48207-5199 

 (313) 576-5921 

_______________________________________________________________________/ 

COUNTER-PLAINTIFF ADIL SHAFI’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE HIS RESPONSE

IN OPPOSITION TO COUNTER-DEFENDANT

BRAINTECH, INC.’S RENEWED MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, OR, IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, FOR NEW TRIAL

 NOW COMES Counter-Plaintiff, Adil Shafi, and in support of his Motion for 

Extension of Time to File his Response in Opposition to Counter-Defendant Braintech, 

Inc.’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, in the Alternative, for New 

Trial, states as follows: 

1. Counter-Defendant Braintech, Inc. (“Braintech”) filed its Renewed 

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, in the Alternative, for New 

Trial on June 21, 2013. 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 2 of 20 Pg ID 3453
3

2. On June 25, 2013, this Honorable Court filed a Notice of Error striking 

one of the documents in Braintech’s Motion. The undersigned mistakenly 

read and interpreted said Court Order as striking Braintech’s entire 

motion, not just an exhibit. 

3. Upon information and belief, Braintech will not be unduly prejudiced or 

suffer undue delay if this Honorable Court grants Shafi’s Motion and 

allows Shafi to file his response to Braintech’s Motion at this time. Said 

proposed Response and Brief is attached as Exhibit A. 

4. In accordance with Rule 7.1(a) of the Local Rules for the Eastern District 

of Michigan, prior to filing the instant Motion, counsel for Shafi requested 

concurrence in the relief sought, but concurrence has not been received by 

counsel for Braintech. 

WHEREFORE, Counter-Plaintiff Adil Shafi prays that this Honorable Court enter 

an Order granting him an extension of time to file his response to Counter-Defendant’s 

Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, in the Alternative, for New Trial. 

Dated: July 31, 2013 DOYLE & MALINZAK, P.C. 

 Attorney for Shafi 

 By: /s/ T. Michael Doyle 

 T. Michael Doyle (P12931) 

 45 Blue Star Highway 

 Douglas, Michigan 49406 

 (269) 857-3111 

 tmichael06t@aol.com 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 3 of 20 Pg ID 3454
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

************** 

ADIL SHAFI, Case No. 2:09-cv-10454 

 

 Counter-Plaintiff, Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

Vs. 

BRAINTECH, INC., 

 

 Counter-Defendant. 

____________________________________/ 

T. Michael Doyle (P12931) Ann Bagno Widlak (P35763) 

DOYLE & MALINZAK, P.C. Susan D. Koval (P59297) 

Attorney for Counter-Plaintiff NEMETH BURWELL 

45 Blue Star Highway Attorney for Counter-Defendant 

Douglas, Michigan 49406 200 Talon Centre Drive, Suite 200 

(269) 857-3111 Detroit, Michigan 48207-5199 

 (313) 576-5921 

_______________________________________________________________________/ 

COUNTER-PLAINTIFF ADIL SHAFI’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF

COUNTER-PLAINTIFF ADIL SHAFI’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE HIS RESPONSE

IN OPPOSITION TO COUNTER-DEFENDANT

BRAINTECH, INC.’S RENEWED MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, OR, IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, FOR NEW TRIAL

 Pursuant to Rule 7.1(a) of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan, 

prior to filing the instant motion, counsel for Braintech requested concurrence in the 

relief sought, but concurrence has not been received by counsel for Adil Shafi. 

1. Counter-Defendant Braintech, Inc. (“Braintech”) filed its Renewed Motion for 

Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, in the Alternative, for New Trial on June 21, 

2013. 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 4 of 20 Pg ID 3455
5

2. On June 25, 2013, this Honorable Court filed a Notice of Error striking one of 

the documents in Braintech’s Motion. The undersigned mistakenly read and 

interpreted said Court Order as striking Braintech’s entire motion, not just an 

exhibit. 

3. Upon information and belief, Braintech will not be unduly prejudiced or suffer 

undue delay if this Honorable Court grants Shafi’s Motion and allows Shafi to 

file his response to Braintech’s Motion at this time. Said proposed Response 

and Brief is attached as Exhibit A. 

4. Counter-Plaintiff would like the chance to argue that this Court should deny 

Braintech, Inc.’s (“Braintech”) motion for judgment as a matter of law 

pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the 

following reasons: 

a. The jury did have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for Shafi 

on his counterclaim that Braintech breached his employment 

agreement by failing to pay him severance pay after termination of 

employment. 

b. The record evidence supported the conclusion that a reasonable jury 

could have reached - - - that Braintech did not have good cause to 

terminate Shafi’s employment and that Shafi was entitled to severance 

pay. 

 Shafi moves the Court to allow him to file Exhibit A pursuant to Rule 59(a) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to deny Braintech’s motion for a new trial because the 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 5 of 20 Pg ID 3456
6

evidence in this case totally supported a finding that Braintech did not have good cause to 

terminate Shafi’s employment. 

 WHEREFORE, Shafi respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant Shafi’s 

Motion for Extension of Time to File his Response in Opposition to Counter-Defendant 

Braintech, Inc.’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, in the 

Alternative, for New Trial. 

Dated: July 31, 2013 DOYLE & MALINZAK, P.C. 

 Attorney for Shafi 

 By: /s/ T. Michael Doyle 

 T. Michael Doyle (P12931) 

 45 Blue Star Highway 

 Douglas, Michigan 49406 

 (269) 857-3111 

 tmichael06t@aol.com 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 6 of 20 Pg ID 3457
7

EXHIBIT A 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 7 of 20 Pg ID 3458
i

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

************** 

ADIL SHAFI, Case No. 2:09-cv-10454 

 

 Counter-Plaintiff, Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

Vs. 

BRAINTECH, INC., 

 

 Counter-Defendant. 

____________________________________/ 

T. Michael Doyle (P12931) Ann Bagno Widlak (P35763) 

DOYLE & MALINZAK, P.C. Susan D. Koval (P59297) 

Attorney for Counter-Plaintiff NEMETH BURWELL 

45 Blue Star Highway Attorney for Counter-Defendant 

Douglas, Michigan 49406 200 Talon Centre Drive, Suite 200 

(269) 857-3111 Detroit, Michigan 48207-5199 

 (313) 576-5921 

_______________________________________________________________________/ 

ADIL SHAFI’S RESPONSE AND BRIEF

IN OPPOSITION TO BRAINTECH, INC.’S

RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A 

MATTER OF LAW OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,

FOR NEW TRIAL

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 8 of 20 Pg ID 3459
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED ....................................... iii 

INDEX OF CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES ........................................ iv 

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

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ...................................................... 2 

DISCUSSION OF RECORD EVIDENCE .............................................. 2 

STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER RULE 50 ........................................ 5 

STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER RULE 59 ....................................... 6 

ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 7 

 THE UNCONTRADICTED RECORD EVIDENCE COMPELS 

 REASONABLE PERSONS TO REACH ONE CONCLUSION, THAT IS, 

 THAT BRAINTECH DID NOT HAVE GOOD CAUSE TO TERMINATE 

 SHAFI’S EMPLOYMENT ....................................................... 7 

CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 8 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 9 of 20 Pg ID 3460
iii

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED

I. WHETHER BRAINTECH IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER 

OF LAW PURSUANT TO RULE 50(b) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF 

CIVIL PROCEDURE BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT A LEGALLY 

SUFFICIENT EVIDENTIARY BASIS TO SUTAIN THE JURY’S 

VERDICT AND A REASONABLE JURY WOULD HAVE CONCLUDED 

THAT BRAINTECH DID NOT HAVE GOOD CAUSE TO TERMINATE 

ADIL SHAFI’S EMPLOYMENT. 

Shafi answers no. 

II. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WHETHER BRAINTECH IS ENTITLED TO A 

NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO RULE 59(a) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF 

CIVIL PROCEDURE BECAUSE THE JURY’S DETERMINATION THAT 

BRAINTECH DID NOT HAVE GOOD CAUSE TO TERMINATE ADIL 

SHAFI’S EMPLOYMENT IS AGAINST THE CLEAR WEIGHT OF THE 

EVIDENCE. 

Shafi answers no. 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 10 of 20 Pg ID 3461
iv

INDEX OF CONTROLLING AUTHORIES

Cases Page

Brocklehurst vs. PPG Indus., Inc., 123 F3d. 890, 894 (6th Cir. 1997) ............ 5 

Carney vs. Preston, 683 A.2d 47, 54 (Del. Supr. 1996) ............................ 6 

Drayton vs. Price, 2010 WL 1544414, at *4 (Del. Supr.) (citation omitted) .... 6 

Holmes vs. City of Massillon, Ohio, 78 F.3d 1041, 1045-1046 (6th Cir. 1996) .. 7 

J.C. Wyckoff & Assoc. vs. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 936 F.2d 1474, 1487 

(6th Cir. 1991) ................................................................... 7 

K & T Enters, Inc. vs. Zurich Ins. Co., 97 F.3d 171, 176 (6th Cir. 1996) ......... 5 

Town of Cheswold vs. Vann, 9 A. 3d 467, 472 (Del. Supr. 2010) ................. 6 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 11 of 20 Pg ID 3462
1

INTRODUCTION

 The jury found that the termination was “without good cause”. If you read the 

following provision, is seems clear that if termination is without cause, our client is 

entitled to the remainder of his three year base salary, less what he had already been paid. 

(a) Severance Pay. In the event of a termination of this Agreement by the 

Company, without Good Cause, due to Total Permanent Disability or due 

to the death of the EXECUTIVE, or by the EXECUTIVE for Good 

Reason, then the EXECUTIVE or the EXECUTIVE heirs will be entitled 

to: 

i. unpaid compensation and benefits described hereunder earned up 

to the termination date to be paid within 10 business days of 

termination; and 

ii. a lump sum payment (less all deductions required by law such as 

income taxes) equal to the remainder of the then Base Salary 

remaining in the three year employment term set out in paragraph 

5 to be paid within 20 business days after the Termination Date. 

The EXECUTIVE agrees that after the Termination Date, but prior 

to payment of the severance pay and any outstanding bonus monies 

called for herein, EXECUTIVE shall execute a release, in the form 

of a severance agreement, of any and all claims he may have 

against the Company and its officers, employees, directors, parents 

and affiliates. EXECUTIVE understands and agrees that the 

payment of the severance pay and bonus called for by this 

paragraph are contingent on his execution of the previously 

described release of claims. For avoidance of doubt, if severance 

is paid to EXECUTIVE then non-compete will be effective. 

- 

- 

The base salary for the three years is provided for as follows in the Agreement: 

 BASE SALARY: BRAINTECH shall pay the EXECUTIVE, in consideration for 

the Services an annual base salary of US$180,000, which shall be increased by at least 

10% at each anniversary of the EXECUTIVE’s employment and additional possible 

increase adjusted at the discretion of the CEO, based on performance above and beyond 

achieving certain milestones. 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 12 of 20 Pg ID 3463
2

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

 In Count II of Shafi’s Counterclaim, Shafi alleges that Braintech breached an 

employment agreement by failing to pay him severance pay upon termination of his 

employment. The severance provision is contained in Paragraph 12(g) of the 

employment agreement and provides that Shafi would be entitled to severance pay if 

Braintech did not have good cause to terminate his employment. Jt.Ex.1. 

 This matter was tried to a jury beginning May 21, 2013. On May 22, 2013, 

Braintech made its Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50(1). Tr.II.45.1

 

The Court took the Motion under advisement. Tr.II.46. On May 23, 2013, the jury 

returned a verdict in favor of Shafi in the amount of $180,000. The clerk entered 

judgment on the verdict on May 24, 2013. 

DISCUSSION OF THE RECORD EVIDENCE

Shafi’s Case

 In Shafi’s casae-in-chief, Shafi relied upon all of Shari’s exhibits as well as 

Braintech’s exhibits. Shafi presented a single witness – himself. His testimony can be 

succinctly summarized as follows: 

1. He disagreed with defense counsel’s opening statement. Tr.20. The jury 

agreed with Shafi. 

2. Shafi denied any occasions of dishonesty. 

3. The jury determined that there was no evidence of wrongdoing. 

4. The jury obviously did not believe Rick Weidinger. Tr.21. 

5. The jury found that Shafi was stymied in performing his job duties. 

6. Shafi was terminated with a letter just before Thanksgiving of 2008. 

Tr.25. 

 

1

 Vol. I of the trial transcript is appended as Exhibit A, and Vol. II is appended as Exhibit B. 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 13 of 20 Pg ID 3464
3

7. Shafi explained that the Reliabot technology involved vision guided 

robotics and explained generally how it worked. Tr.26-27. 

8. Shafi denied that he ever perpetrated any of these paragraphs (paragraph 

12). Tr.28. 

9. Shafi testified that he never destroyed e-mails and that he never had access 

to anything but his own laptop. Tr.28. Shafi explained that this did not 

include spam. 

10. Shafi testified that he was seeking $900,000 in contract damages. Tr.28. 

This concluded all of the evidence presented by Mr. Shafi before he was cross 

examined by defense counsel. 

Braintech’s Cross Examination of Shafi

1. In its verdict, the jury found that Shafi was credible in his crossexamination testimony. 

2. Shafi pointed out that Rick Weidinger made his performance impossible 

by breaching promises to support same. 

Shafi’s Re-Direct Examination 

1. Shafi explained how the Reliabot technology he sold to Braintech worked. 

Tr. II. 39. 

2. Shafi pointed out that he supervised writing of the source code for the 

Reliabot software by Kevin North, a former Shafi employee. Tr.II.40. 

3. Shafi asked for him [Kevin North] to be made available to Braintech, but 

Mr. Weidinger refused to make him available. T.II.40. 

4. Shafi testified that Mr. Weidinger made it impossible for him to have John 

Neilson which stopped him from doing his job. Tr.II.40. 

5. Shafi explained why the Siemens’ invoice remained unpaid despite telling 

Mr. Weidinger that payment was imminent on several occasions. One 

phase was paid but it was impossible for Siemens to implement the second 

phase. Tr.II.41. 

6. Shafi described his pipeline of accounts and potential prospects and 

pointed out that he needed things that were denied. Tr.II.42-43. 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 14 of 20 Pg ID 3465
4

Shafi’s testimony on re-direct examination was never rebutted by Braintech. 

Braintech’s Uncontested and Unimpeached Defense

 Braintech introduced 83 defense exhibits that supported Shafi’s case. The jury 

supported and believed Shafi’s case. Braintech’s former Chief Executive Officer Rick 

Weidinger testified on behalf of Braintech and established that he ended up with all the 

assets of Braintech. 

Shafi’s Rebuttal

 The jury fully believed Shafi’s rebuttal case. The exhibits introduced by 

Braintech did not demonstrate good cause. He did not rebut Mr. Weidinger’s testimony. 

Instead, Shafi testified to the following: 

1. The Braintech e-mails he destroyed were “spam” e-mails. Tr.II.91. 

2. He stated that he gave the Reliabot source code to a third party before he 

sold it to Braintech. Tr.II.91-92. 

3. He described his “phone book.” Tr.II.91-92. This was a thick file of 

customer information. 

4. His “sales plan” was the access and acceleration schedule. Tr.II.92. 

5. He denied that John Neilson was hired by Braintech as a consultant. 

Tr.II.92. 

6. He denied that Rick Weidinger gave him authority to hire 6 people 

because Mr. Weidinger did not provide the financial funding for all of the 

hires. Tr.II.92-93. 

7. Shafi stated that he had a Braintech credit card but testified that is might as 

well have been “made out of wood” because he was required to get two 

weeks preapproval for business expenses. Tr.II.93. 

Braintech never rebutted Shafi’s testimony. Mr. Weidinger didn’t care enough to 

be present. 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 15 of 20 Pg ID 3466
5

STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER RULE 50

 A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is governed by Rule 50(b), 

which provides in pertinent part: 

RULE 50. JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN A JURY TRIAL; 

RELATED MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL; CONDITIONAL RULING 

. . . 

(b) Renewing the Motion After Trial; Alternative Motion for a New Trial. 

If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made 

under Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to 

the jury subject to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by 

the motion. No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment - - or if the 

motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28 

days after the jury was discharged - - the movant may file a renewed 

motion for judgment as a matter of law and may include an alternative or 

joint request for a new trial under Rule 59 . . . 

Under Rule 50, a court may grant judgment as a matter of law on a particular 

issue if “a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for 

the party on that issue . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1). In cases based on diversity 

jurisdiction, a state-law standard of review is applied when a Rule 50(b) motion for 

judgment as a matter of law is based on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 

necessary to support the jury’s verdict. K & T Enters, Inc. vs. Zurich Ins. Co., 97 F.3d 

171, 176 (6th Cir. 1996). Because this is a diversity case and the instant motion 

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, Sixth Circuit precedent requires the Court to 

look to the standard of review used by the courts of the state whose substantive law 

governs the action. Brocklehurst vs. PPG Indus., Inc., 123 F3d. 890, 894 (6th Cir. 1997). 

In this case, the parties agree that Delaware substantive law applies to the 

employment contract claims. Jt. Ex.1, ¶18. Accordingly, Delaware’s standard of review 

governing post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law should be applied. 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 16 of 20 Pg ID 3467
6

Super. Ct. Civ. R. 50. Judgment as a matter or law in actions tried by jury; 

alternative motion for new trial; conditional rulings. 

(a)(1) If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is 

no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party 

on that issue, the Court may determine the issue against the party and may grant a 

motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim 

or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated 

without a favorable finding on that issue. 

 In Delaware, as in most jurisdictions, jury verdicts should stand unless a 

reasonable jury could not have reached the result. Town of Cheswold vs. Vann, 9 A. 3d 

467, 472 (Del. Supr. 2010). “When considering judgment as a matter of law the trial 

judge does not weigh the evidence but, rather, views the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the non-moving party and, drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom, 

determines if a verdict may be found for the party having the burden.” Drayton vs. Price, 

2010 WL 1544414, at *4 (Del. Supr.) (citation omitted). “Juries are not permitted to 

make [ ] factual findings in favor of a party at trial if “there is no legally sufficient 

evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue . . .” Carney vs. 

Preston, 683 A.2d 47, 54 (Del. Supr. 1996). “The court must determine if under any 

reasonable view, the jury could find in favor of the non-moving party.” Mazda Motor 

Corp. vs. Lindahl, 706 A. 2d 526, 530 (Del. 1998). 

 In the instant matter, Braintech properly made a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment 

as a matter of law during the trial in this matter on May 22, 2013. Braintech renews the 

motion pursuant to Rule 50(b). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER RULE 59

A motion for new trial is governed by Rule 59, which provides in pertinent part: 

RULE 59. NEW TRIAL; ALTERING OR AMENDING A JUDGMENT 

 . . . 

 (a) In General.. 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 17 of 20 Pg ID 3468
7

(1) Grounds for new Trial. The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all 

or some of the issues - - and to any party - - as follows: 

(A) after a jury trial, for any for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in 

an action at law in federal court. 

“[A] new trial is warranted when a jury has reached a ‘seriously erroneous result’ as 

evidenced by: (1) the verdict being against the weight of the evidence; (2) the damages 

being excessive; or (3) the trial being unfair to the moving party in some fashion, i.e., the 

proceedings being influenced by prejudice or bias.” Holmes vs. City of Massillon, Ohio, 

78 F.3d 1041, 1045-1046 (6th Cir. 1996). When deciding whether to grant a new trial, a 

district court is free to independently weigh the evidence. A trial court should grant a 

motion for a new trial when the verdict is clearly against the weight of the evidence. J.C. 

Wyckoff & Assoc. vs. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 936 F.2d 1474, 1487 (6th Cir. 1991). 

ARGUMENT

 Viewing the record evidence in the light most favorable to Shafi and, drawing all 

reasonable inferences therefrom, there is legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury 

verdict in this case. Under any reasonable view, Braintech did not have good cause to 

terminate Shafi’s employment, and that is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn 

from the record evidence. 

I. THE UNCONTRADICTED RECORD EVIDENCE 

COMPELS REASONABLE PERSONS TO REACH ONE 

CONCLUSION, THAT IS, THAT BRAINTECH HAD GOOD 

CAUSE TO TERMINATE SHAFI’S EMPLOYMENT. 

Under the employment agreement, Shafi was not entitled to severance pay unless 

he could demonstrate that Braintech did not have good cause to terminate him. Jt.Ex.1, 

¶12(g). Paragraph 12(a) of the employment agreement defines “Good Cause” as follows: 

(a) “Good Cause” shall mean: 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 18 of 20 Pg ID 3469
8

i. the willful and continued failure by the EXECUTIVE to substantially 

perform his duties hereunder (other than due to incapacity from physical 

or mental illness); 

ii. gross misconduct which is or could reasonably be expected to become 

materially injuries to BRAINTECH or its business or reputation, 

including, without limitation, fraud, or misappropriation of Company 

property or unauthorized disclosure and/or non-disclosure of confidential 

information; and 

iii. dishonesty resulting, or intending to result, directly or indirectly, in gain or 

personal enrichment at the expense of the Company. 

The jury found that there was no good cause to terminate. 

The Uncontested Record Evidence Establishes That Braintech Did Not Have Good 

Cause And That Shafi Is Entitled To Severance Pay.

The Uncontested Record Evidence Establishes That Shafi Did Not Engage In 

Dishonesty That Was Intended To Result In Personal Gain To Shafi At The 

Expense Of Braintech.

CONCLUSION

 WHEREFORE, Shafi respectfully request that this Honorable Court deny 

Braintech’s 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 Shafi as 

decided by the jury. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 DOYLE & MALINZAK, P.C. 

 Attorneys for Shafi 

Dated: July 31, 2013 By: /s/ T. Michael Doyle 

 T. Michael Doyle (P12931) 

 45 Blue Star Highway 

 Douglas, Michigan 49406 

 (269) 857-3111 

 tmichael06t@aol.com 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 19 of 20 Pg ID 3470
9

PROOF OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on July 31, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing paper 

(Counter-Plaintiff Adil Shafi’s Motion for Extension of Time to File his Response in 

Opposition to Counter-Defendant Braintech, Inc.’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a 

Matter of Law, or, in the Alternative, for New Trial; Counter-Plaintiff Adil Shafi’s Brief 

in Support of Counter-Plaintiff Adil Shafi’s Motion for Extension of Time to File his 

Response in Opposition to Counter-Defendant Braintech, Inc.’s Renewed Motion for 

Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, in the Alternative, for New Trial; and Adil Shafi’s 

Response and Brief in Opposition to Braintech, Inc.’s Renewed Motion for Judgement 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/ T. Michael Doyle 

 T. Michael Doyle (P12931) 

 DOYLE & MALINZAK, P.C 

 Attorney for Shafi 

 45 Blue Star Highway 

 Douglas, Michigan 49406 

 (269) 857-3111 

 tmichael06t@aol.com 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 162 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 20 of 20 Pg ID 3471