Opinion ID: 758495
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: MacDraw's Motion to Reassert a Breach of Contract Claim

Text: 27 MacDraw also challenges Judge Chin's denial of its motion, made at the conclusion of Johnston's testimony at trial, to reassert a breach of contract claim. MacDraw sought to justify the motion on the ground that Johnston had testified that the October 12, 1990 fax that he had written memorialized an agreement with Colella. Although MacDraw has not identified the procedural basis for its motion, CIT plausibly suggests that we should construe the motion as having been made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b). 5 We review a district court's denial of a Rule 15(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. 890 Noyac Rd., 945 F.2d 1252, 1257 (2d Cir.1991). 28 In light of Judge Chin's factual finding--which we find not clearly erroneous--that the agreement to which Johnston referred was only an agreement that CIT would proceed with its due diligence once it learned of Laribee's acceptance of the equipment, the proposed reassertion of a breach of contract claim would have been futile. Moreover, Judge Kram had already dismissed MacDraw's contract-based claims in her Memorandum Opinion and Order of January 17, 1994. Without addressing or deciding whether Judge Kram's ruling itself precluded MacDraw from seeking to reassert a breach of contract claim, we conclude that Judge Chin did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion.