Cambridge-Lee Industries, Inc. v. Westlake Vinyls, Inc.

*The Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Michigan, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 04a0136n.06
Filed: November 30, 2004
No. 03-6204
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
CAMBRIDGE-LEE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WESTLAKE VINYLS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
Before: MOORE and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; and EDMUNDS, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Dixie Arc, Inc. (“Dixie Arc”), contracted with defendant-appellant
Westlake Vinyls, Inc. (“Westlake”), to construct an electrical system to be installed on Westlake’s
property in Calvert City, Kentucky. Plaintiff-appellee Cambridge-Lee Industries, Inc. (“Cambridge-
Lee”) provided materials to Dixie Arc for construction of the electrical system. Dixie Arc did not
pay all it owed to Cambridge-Lee for these materials, so Cambridge-Lee brought suit to enforce a
materialman’s lien on the improvements to Westlake’s property in the amount of what Dixie Arc
owed Cambridge-Lee. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court
granted Cambridge-Lee’s motion and denied Westlake’s, ordering that Cambridge-Lee holds an
enforceable lien on Westlake’s property in the amount of $650,553.91, plus prejudgment and

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-6204
Cambridge-Lee Indus., Inc. v. Westlake Vinyls, Inc.
- 2 -
postjudgment interest. Westlake appeals, arguing that the district court erred in: (1) determining that
Dixie Arc was a contractor and not a materialman, and that Cambridge-Lee could thus enforce its
lien against Westlake under Kentucky law; and (2) awarding prejudgment interest to Cambridge-
Lee.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal and the
briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in holding that Cambridge-Lee
had an enforceable materialman’s lien against Westlake. Nor are we persuaded that the district court
erred in awarding prejudgment interest to Cambridge-Lee. Because the reasons for these
determinations have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion
by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court on the basis of the reasoning set out by that court in its opinion and
order entered on July 2, 2003.

-- 2 of 2 --