Question

Regarding the case of QVC vs MJC 1.what is the law on the issue the court is deciding? 2. What does the law say? 3. What kind of law is it, i.e. statutory, regulatory, constitutional or common law etc.?

Answer 1

QVC, Inc. (plaintiff) used its cable channel to sell 16,721 space heaters that QVC had purchased from MJC America, Ltd. (MJC) (defendant). QVC charged its customers $68 per heater. After paying MJC $36 per heater and some other costs, QVC anticipated earning a profit of $26 on each heater. Many customers reported that their space heaters began smoking, sparking, or emitting flames. QVC decided to recall the heaters. QVC then sued MJC to recover QVC’s costs and lost profits. The costs QVC sought included the price it had paid MJC for each heater; refunds of shipping costs to customers on their initial purchase and later returns of defective heaters and cords; shipping costs for QVC’s return of defective heaters to MJC; costs for processing returns; and the profits QVC lost for every heater it sold then recalled. The purchase order between QVC and MJC required MJC to refund QVC’s purchase price and shipping costs for defective merchandise. Additionally, the purchase order required MJC to indemnify QVC against losses, including consequential damages, resulting from defective heaters. QVC provided evidence of its costs and losses for all of these categories

The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Reconsideration is appropriate if the moving party shows "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). A motion for reconsideration may not be used "as a means to reargue matters already argued and disposed of or as an attempt to relitigate a point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant." Abu-Jamal v. Horn, No. 99-5089, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2001).

QVC rightly disagrees with Soleus's characterization of this evidence as "newly discovered." The evidence now submitted by Soleus was, by Soleus' own admission, available to Soleus at the time it made its response to QVC's motion for summary judgment and cannot serve as the basis for granting a motion for reconsideration. See Marino v. Kent Line Int'l., No. 02-4488, 2003 WL 22597690, at *1(E.D.Pa. Oct. 29, 2003) (quotation omitted) (finding documents produced by the defendants during the course of discovery were not "new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment . . . and therefore they cannot be grounds for reconsideration").

Soleus was less than careful in filing sufficient evidence to rebut the facts set forth in QVC's motion for summary judgment. Rather than provide the Court with a detailed accounting of any credits issued to QVC for shipped customer return merchandise in its response to QVC's motion for summary judgment, Soleus argued merely that "[s]ince there were numerous returns by QVC that resulted in the exchange of numerous credit and debit memorandum [sic] issued by the parties, the amount and reasonableness of QVC's claim for monies and damages and the balance owed by each party are triable issues of material fact." Dkt. No. 39 at 5. In order to defend against a motion for summary judgment, the adverse party must raise "more than a mere scintilla of evidence in its favor" and cannot survive by relying on unsupported assertions, conclusory allegations, or mere suspicions. Williams v. Borough of W. Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir. 1989). However, in order to prevent the injustice that might result if QVC received the benefit of both a credit and a refund for the same merchandise, I will GRANT Soleus's motion only to the extent that Soleus can prove at trial that its obligation to reimburse QVC for all or some portion of shipped customer return merchandise was satisfied by QVC's acceptance of credits for such merchandise before QVC informed Soleus that it intended to exercise its option to receive a refund under Section 7 of the Purchase Orders in the April 8, 2008 letter from QVC to Charley Loh