Redbird Business Group, LLC et al v. Harrison

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
REDBIRD BUSINESS GROUP, LLC; 	)
REDBIRD BIOSCIENCE OKLAHOMA, 	)
LLC; and RB REALTYCO, LLC, 	)
)
Plaintiffs and 	)
Counter-Defendants, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-20-098-JAR
)
MATTHEW HARRISON, 	)
)
Defendant and 	)
Counter-Claimant. 	)
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant/Counterclaim
Plaintiff 	Matthew 	Harrison’s 	Motion 	to 	Clarify 	and 	Correct 	the
Court’s March 31, 2023 Order and Judgment to Include RB RealtyCo’s
Liability 	for 	All 	Payments 	as 	Guarantor 	(Docket 	Entry 	#182).
Defendant/Counterclaim 	Plaintiff 	Matthew 	Harrison 	(“Harrison”)
seeks to have this Court amend the Opinion and Order and associated
Judgment 	entered 	March 	31, 	2023 	to 	address 	Harrison’s 	claim 	for
breach of the guaranty agreement by RB RealtyCo, LLC.
Harrison proceeds under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) and 59(e). 	The
former provides
(b) Amended or Additional Findings. On a
party's 	motion 	filed 	no 	later 	than 	28 	days
after 	the 	entry 	of 	judgment, 	the 	court 	may
6:20-cv-00098-JAR Document 197 Filed in ED/OK on 03/27/24 Page 1 of 4

2
amend 	its 	findings--or 	make 	additional
findings--and 	may 	amend 	the 	judgment
accordingly. 	The 	motion 	may 	accompany 	a
motion for a new trial under Rule 59.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b).
Generally, 	this 	rule 	applies 	to 	findings 	of 	fact 	and
conclusions 	of 	law 	entered 	after 	a 	non-jury 	trial. 	Winkel 	v.
Heimgartner, 	2015 	WL 	5820965, 	at 	*1 	(D. 	Kan. 	Oct. 	5, 	2015)
(citation omitted). 	The purpose behind Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) is
“to 	correct 	manifest 	errors 	of 	law 	or 	fact 	or, 	in 	some 	limited
situations, 	to 	present 	newly 	discovered 	evidence.” 	Fontenot 	v.
Mesa Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986). However,
Rule 	52(b) 	should 	not 	be 	used 	“to 	introduce 	evidence 	that 	was
available at trial but was not proffered, to relitigate old issues,
to advance new theories, or to secure a rehearing on the merits.”
Id. 	The Court has “considerable latitude” when ruling on a Rule
52(b) motion, and the decision to grant or to deny the motion is
within 	the 	Court's 	“sound 	discretion.” 	Matthews 	v. 	C.E.C. 	Indus.
Corp., 	202 	F.3d 	282 	(table), 	1999 	WL 	1244491, 	at 	*7 	(10th 	Cir.
1999).
A motion under Rule 52(b) may be 	made in 	conjunction with a
motion 	for 	new 	trial 	under 	Rule 	59. 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	52(b). 	In
this instance, Harrison seeks to amend the judgment in accordance
with 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	59(e). 	Rule 	59(e) 	motions 	may 	be 	granted
6:20-cv-00098-JAR Document 197 Filed in ED/OK on 03/27/24 Page 2 of 4

3
when “the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position,
or 	the 	controlling 	law.” 	Servants 	of 	the 	Paraclete 	v. 	Does, 	204
F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
The specific issue presented is whether this Court improperly
failed 	to 	address 	Harrison’s 	claim 	for 	breach 	of 	a 	guaranty
agreement to guarantee payment to Harrison of all that was due him
under 	the 	Employment 	Agreement 	with 	Redbird. 	This 	Court
determined that the issue need not be addressed, finding
Harrison 	states 	in 	his 	Proposed 	Findings 	of
Fact 	and 	Conclusions 	of 	Law 	that 	the
additional 	claims 	for 	breach 	of 	the 	covenant
of 	good 	faith 	and 	fair 	dealing, 	promissory
estoppel, and breach of a guaranty need not be
addressed, 	if 	he 	prevails 	on 	the 	breach 	of
contract 	claim. 	Since 	the 	damages 	for 	such
additional claims would be duplicative of the
damages 	awarded 	under 	the 	breach 	of 	contract
claim, 	this 	Court 	finds 	it 	redundant 	to
address 	those 	additional 	avenues 	for 	relief
and will not do so further.
Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 173, p. 32, n.3.
Harrison contends that the breach of the guaranty still needs
to 	be 	addressed 	in 	order 	to 	provide 	him 	an 	avenue 	of 	collection
for 	the 	Judgment 	amount 	entered 	by 	this 	Court. 	He 	also 	states
that he did not state that the breach of guaranty did not need to
be 	addressed 	but 	rather 	only 	the 	other 	pending 	claims 	which 	are
clearly duplicative of the breach of contract claim.
For 	their 	part, 	the 	Redbird 	entities 	contend 	that 	the
6:20-cv-00098-JAR Document 197 Filed in ED/OK on 03/27/24 Page 3 of 4

4
statement in the footnote of the Opinion and Order was essentially
correct. 	They 	attribute 	the 	erroneous 	statement 	that 	Harrison
basically 	waived 	the 	breach 	of 	guaranty 	claim 	to 	a 	“clerical
mistake.”
Without belaboring the point, this Court mistakenly included
the 	breach 	of 	guaranty 	claim 	in 	the 	statement 	in 	Footnote 	No. 	3
(now footnote 4 in the Amended Opinion and Order). 	The breach of
guaranty 	claim 	is 	clearly 	independent 	of 	the 	breach 	of 	contract
claim 	and 	should 	be 	addressed 	in 	the 	Opinion 	and 	Order 	and 	the
Judgment. 	To that end, Harrison’s Motion will 	be granted and an
Amended Opinion and Order and Amended Judgment will be entered in
order 	to 	correct 	a 	manifest 	error 	in 	fact 	which 	would 	clearly
prejudice Harrison.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff
Matthew Harrison’s Motion to Clarify and Correct the Court’s March
31, 2023 Order and Judgment to Include RB RealtyCo’s Liability for
All 	Payments 	as 	Guarantor 	(Docket 	Entry 	#182) 	is 	hereby 	GRANTED.
A separate Amended Opinion and Order and Amended Judgment will be
entered consistent with this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of March, 2024.
JASON A. ROBERTSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6:20-cv-00098-JAR Document 197 Filed in ED/OK on 03/27/24 Page 4 of 4