UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

HUNTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION. )

d/b/a SPARTON MILPITAS, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Judge Marvin E. Aspen

) Case No. 1:20-cv-4858

v. )

)

OMEGA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Judge:

Presently before us is Defendant Omega Global Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to 

Reconsider the Court’s order Denying Its Motion to Dismiss. (Motion (Dkt. No. 24).) For the 

following reasons, we deny Defendant’s Motion.

BACKGROUND

We assume familiarity with the relevant facts as detailed in our December 3, 2020 Order,

and thus do not fully recount them here. Hunter Tech. Corp. v. Omega Glob. Techs., Inc., No. 

1:20-CV-4858, 2020 WL 7078382 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 3, 2020). The case’s posture so far, in short, is 

that a buyer of diodes sued the seller for breach of contract in state court, the lawsuit was then 

removed to federal court, and then the seller moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

Id. at *1. We held that the purchase order’s forum selection clause providing for jurisdiction in 

the Northern District of Illinois was “an enforceable contract as pleaded and is unaltered by the 

invoice issued after partial performance.” Id. at *3.

Case: 1:20-cv-04858 Document #: 28 Filed: 02/04/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:240
2

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for reconsideration may be brought to correct “manifest errors of law or fact or 

to present newly discovered evidence.” Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., 90 

F.3d 1264, 1269-70 (7th Cir. 1996). Such motions are therefore appropriate where a court 

misunderstood a party’s position and made a decision that warrants reconsideration. See, e.g., id. 

Nevertheless, motions to reconsider are disfavored. Santos v. Williams, No. 15-cv-5325, 2017 

WL 2189102, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 18, 2017). They are so disfavored that the party bringing a 

motion for reconsideration “bears a heavy burden, and motions for reconsideration are not at the 

disposal of parties who want to rehash old arguments.” Id. (citing Patrick v. City of Chi., 103 F. 

Supp. 3d 907, 911 (N.D. Ill. 2015)).

ANALYSIS

Defendant’s Motion argues that our December 3, 2020 Order contradicts Northrop 

Corporation v. Litronic Industries, 29 F.3d 1173, 1177-78 (7th Cir. 1994) and Dresser v. 

Gradall, 965 F.2d 1442 (7th Cir. 1992). We address those two cases in turn.

We begin with Northrop’s statement as for when the battle of the forms analysis is 

triggered: “‘Battle of the forms’ refers to the not uncommon situation in which one business firm 

makes an offer in the form of a preprinted form contract and the offeree responds with its own 

form contract.” Northrop, 29 F.3d at 1174. The instant case is distinguishably pleaded. There, 

Northrop (the buyer-plaintiff) sent several manufacturers, including Litronic (the sellerdefendant), a request to submit offers to sell Northrop a customized printed wire board as 

designated by Northrop. Id. at *1175. The request stated that any purchase would be made by 

means of a purchase order that would set forth terms and conditions that would override any 

inconsistent terms in the offer. Id. In response, Litronic mailed an offer to sell Northrop four 

Case: 1:20-cv-04858 Document #: 28 Filed: 02/04/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:241
3

boards for $19,000 apiece, to be delivered within six weeks. Id. The parties proceeded as if a 

contract was executed, but problematically ignored the purchase order’s requirement that the 

seller send a written acknowledgment to Northrop first. Id. at *1176. Accordingly, the battle of 

the forms analysis applied. The battle of the forms in Northrop was helpful because it was 

unclear which form was operational. See id. Unlike Northrop, the record before us at this 

pleading stage indicates that Defendant accepted Plaintiff’s purchase order’s terms by delivering 

half of the diodes without objection. (Motion at 3 – 4.) That acceptance, unlike Northrop,

occurred before it sent Plaintiff an invoice form that had competing terms. (Id.)

1

Indeed, our 

earlier holding acknowledged this distinguishing trait. See Hunter, 2020 WL 7078382 at *3 

(“We do not opine on whether the outcome would have differed had the invoice been delivered 

together with the first diode shipment.”). Therefore, this is not a battle of the forms scenario like

Northrop.

2

Dresser, 965 F.2d at 1442 is also distinguishable. Like Northrop, Dresser’s offeror sent 

a purchase order with its terms and the offeree responded with an acknowledgment and its own 

terms. Id. at 1444. Then, despite those competing provisions, the parties acted as if a contract 

had been formed. Id. This is different from the instant case because, here, the invoice form was 

1

In full, Defendant states in its motion that Plaintiff “sent a purchase order to [Defendant] for 

certain diodes” then “[Plaintiff] received half of the diodes” (which we held constituted 

acceptance) then days later “[Defendant] sent [Plaintiff] its invoice for the diodes.” (Motion at 

3—4.) 

2 Nor does the pleaded course of dealing sway our analysis. True, the pleaded facts are that the 

purchaser sent an invoice with certain terms following acceptance. But the pleaded facts do not 

suggest whether the past invoices were sent before or contemporaneously with the acceptance. 

Nor does the pleading suggest that the parties adopted the previous invoices’ terms.

Case: 1:20-cv-04858 Document #: 28 Filed: 02/04/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:242
4

sent after the purchase order’s terms were accepted by partial performance, thus the invoice’s 

terms do not amount to a “competing form” that triggers the battle of the forms.3

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider is denied. (Dkt. No. 24.)

Additionally, the parties shall confer within 21 days of this Order and submit a joint status report. 

The joint status report should include the following: principal legal issues remaining, a statement 

of the remaining factual issues along with an indication as to any factual stipulations, a history of 

settlement discussions among the parties and whether a court assisted settlement conference is 

requested, an estimated number of depositions, a proposed fact discovery completion date, a 

proposed expert discovery completion date (including dates for delivery of expert reports), a 

proposed date for filing dispositive motions, the anticipated length of a trial, and the name of the 

principal trial lawyers for each party. It is so ordered.

________________________

Honorable Marvin E. Aspen

United States District Judge

February 4, 2021

Chicago, Illinois

3

In the alternative to reconsideration, Defendant asks that we clarify the effect of the factual 

findings in our December 3, 2020 Order. (Motion at 10 – 11.) Specifically, Defendant asks that 

we clarify whether our holding made “an assumption about the terms of the parties’ agreement 

for purposes of deciding Omega’s motion, or whether it was ruling as a matter of law that 

[Plaintiff]’s purchase order is an enforceable contract.” (Id.) To clarify, our holding accepted the 

pleaded facts as true under Rule 12. In doing so, we held that “The Purchase Order is an 

enforceable contract as pleaded and is unaltered by the invoice issued after partial performance.” 

Hunter, No. 1:20-CV-4858, 2020 WL 7078382 at *3 (emphasis added).

Case: 1:20-cv-04858 Document #: 28 Filed: 02/04/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:243