General Motors Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. Signature Automotive Group, Incorporated

1The Honorable Louis F. Oberdorfer, United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, sitting by
designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0491n.06
Filed: June 10, 2005
Case No. 04-1657
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
a Delaware Corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SIGNATURE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP,
INCORPORATED, et al.,
Defendants
TIM TYLER MOTORS, INC.,
a Michigan Corporation,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE: BATCHELDER and COLE, Circuit Judges; OBERDORFER,1 District Judge.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellant Tim Tyler
Motors, Inc. (“Tyler”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Third-Party-
Defendant-Appellee General Motors Corporation (“GM”) in this diversity action raising issues
under Michigan state law. This lawsuit began when GM sued Signature Automotive Group, Inc.
(“Signature”), a company in the business of purchasing vehicles for rental car companies, to recover
certain incentive payments that GM had made to Signature under a contract that GM claimed
Signature breached. Signature responded by filing a third-party claim against Tyler, the GM dealer

-- 1 of 2 --

2
that agreed to place Signature’s vehicle orders with GM, alleging that Tyler’s mistakes in ordering
the vehicles caused Signature to breach its agreement with GM. Tyler filed counterclaims against
both GM and Signature, and the matter before us involves only Tyler’s appeal of the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to GM on Tyler’s contract, fraud, and statutory claims.
Specifically, Tyler argues that the district court erred in the following ways: 1) by finding
no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether GM engaged in bad faith conduct in its dealings
with Tyler; 2) by finding that GM did not violate any contractual duties to Tyler with regard to re-
invoicing vehicles or providing retail incentives; 3) by refusing to find that GM had committed fraud
or fraud by omission in its dealings with Tyler; and 4) by finding that GM’s alleged bad faith and
fraudulent conduct did not constitute a violation of MICH . COMP . LAWS § 445.1574(1)(a).
After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, the parties’ briefs, and counsels’
arguments, we are convinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. As the district
court’s opinion carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised, and clearly
articulates the reasons underlying its decision, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would
serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we
AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --