Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Big Win for BMD Client Little Mountain Precision

News Article, Client Spotlight

BMD attorneys Mathew Doney and Daniel Rudary tried the case to verdict in federal district court

Brennan, Manna & Diamond Partner Mathew Doney and Partner, Co-Chair of BMD’s Tort Litigation Group Daniel Rudary recently obtained a significant victory for manufacturing client Little Mountain Precision, LLC. Little Mountain entered into long-term, multi-year supply agreements—commonly referred to as “LTAs” in the manufacturing industry. After the agreements were terminated in May 2022, litigation between Little Mountain and the buyer ensued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio before Judge Patricia A. Gaughan (Case No. Case No. 1:22-cv-01471-PAG).

By filing motions with the Court, BMD obtained the dismissal of third-party claims filed by the buyer. BMD subsequently obtained several victories at the summary judgment stage, including: (1) judgment in Little Mountain’s favor on several of the buyer’s defenses; and (2) judgment confirming the enforceability of the liquidated damages provisions contained within the parties’ contracts.

Attorneys Doney and Rudary proceeded to trial in September 2024. Although the defendant asserted several counterclaims against Little Mountain for breach of contract, the Court dismissed each of them on BMD’s motion for directed verdict. Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Little Mountain for the sum of $3,800,000, plus legal costs.

“This case highlighted the importance of understanding the Uniform Commercial Code and the ability that manufacturers like Little Mountain have to adjust those default Code provisions as part of entering into significant deals,” said Attorney Doney.

Attorney Rudary added, “This victory reflects the depth, breadth, and skill of BMD’s litigation practice group, which has a strong record of success trying cases to verdict in state and federal courts.”

BMD Member Robert A. Hager served as a substantial resource throughout the case, and Paralegals Rachel Gue and Andrea Whitacker provided crucial trial assistance. 

If you are in need of contract consultations, including those pertaining to the Uniform Commercial Code, or are otherwise in need of litigation assistance, please feel free to contact Mathew Doney at medoney@bmdllc.com or Daniel Rudary at djrudary@bmdllc.com.


Defining Concierge and Boutique Medicine

Amanda L. Waesch, Partner at Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC, Akron, Ohio, shared with the Stark County Medical Society Membership alternative physician practice structures, pros and cons of each structure, and the differences between Institutional Providers and Concierge Medicine.

How artificial intelligence relates to the legal profession

Legal research has changed. An attorney who started his career dredging through books can now instantly consult vast databases, saving countless man hours. Soon, however, it may need not involve the man at all.

Ohio Supreme Court Liquidated Damages Analysis: Hindsight is not 2020!

In a case decided on February 24, 2016, the Ohio Supreme Court construed the enforceability of a liquidated damages provision in a public works construction contract. The Court held that when evaluating the enforceability of a liquidated damages provision in a construction contract, the court must conduct its analysis prospectively, based on the per diem amount of the liquidated damages at the time the contract is executed, and not retrospectively, based on the total amount of liquidated damages that ultimately accrue.

Holy Toledo! Claims Waived Under Article 8

In a February 2, 2016 decision, the Tenth District Court of Appeals in Franklin County affirmed the Court of Claims and upheld the decision to deny an electrical contractor’s claims against the University of Toledo because they were not timely asserted.