PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Inc. v. LabQ Clinical Diagnostics, LLC

United 	States 	District Court
District 	of Massachusetts
)
PerkinElmer 	Health 	Sciences, 	)
Inc., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
V. 	)
)
LabQ 	Clinical 	Diagnostics, 	LLC, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
)
Civil Action No.
22-11412-NMG
MEMORANDUM 	& ORDER
GORTON, 	J.
Pending 	before 	the 	Court 	are 	the 	Motion 	to 	Alter 	Judgment
(Docket 	No . 	287) 	and 	Motion 	for 	Attorneys ' 	Fees 	(Docket 	No . 	292)
of 	plaintiff 	and 	counterclaim defendant 	PerkinElmer 	Health
Sciences , 	Inc ., 	now 	known 	as 	Revvity 	Health 	Sciences , 	Inc .
(" plaintiff " 	or 	" PerkinElmer " ) . 	These 	motions 	have 	been 	filed
subsequent 	to 	an 	order 	of 	this 	Court 	finding 	in 	favor 	of
PerkinElmer 	on 	all 	claims 	and 	counterclaims 	in 	this 	case . 	For
the 	following 	reasons , 	both 	motions 	will 	be 	allowed .
I. 	Background
This 	case 	involves 	a 	breach 	of 	contract 	dispute 	between
PerkinElmer 	and 	defendant 	LabQ 	Clinical 	Diagnostics , 	LLC
(" defendant " 	or 	" LabQ " ) . 	Between 	2020 	and 	2023 , 	PerkinELmer
supplied 	LabQ 	with 	COVID - 19 	testing 	kits 	and , 	when 	LabQ 	failed
to 	pay 	invoices , 	brought 	suit 	for 	breach 	of 	contract 	and 	unjust
-1-
Case 1:22-cv-11412-NMG Document 319 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 10

enrichment . 	LabQ 	rejoined 	that 	the 	test 	kits 	were 	fa u lty 	and
brought 	counterclaims 	against 	plaintiff 	alleging 	breach 	of
contract , 	gross 	negligence 	and 	unfair 	and 	deceptive 	trade
practices .
In 	September , 	2025 , 	the 	Court 	entered 	summary 	judgmen t 	in
favor 	of 	plaintiff 	on 	its 	breach 	of 	contract 	claim and
defendant ' s 	counterclaims 	(Doc k et 	No . 	285) . 	In 	its 	order ,
however , 	the 	Court 	did 	not 	specify 	the 	damages 	to 	be 	awarded .
Shortly 	thereafter , 	plaintiff moved 	to 	alter 	the 	judg ment 	so 	as
to 	include 	an 	a ward 	of 	damages 	and 	prejudgment 	interest 	and
separately 	to 	award 	attorneys ' 	fees .
II. 	Motion 	to Alter 	Judgment
A. Legal 	Standard
Defendant 	timely 	opposed .
Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	60(a) 	permits 	a 	court , 	on
its 	own 	accord 	or 	by motion , 	to 	correct 	" a 	clerical 	mistake 	or 	a
mistake 	arising 	from 	oversight 	or 	omission ." 	Rule 	60(a) 	is
properly 	employed 	where 	the 	court 	intended 	to 	include 	a
particular 	provision 	in 	the 	judgment 	but 	neglected 	to 	do 	s o .
Bowen 	Inv ., 	Inc . 	v . 	Carneiro 	Donuts , 	Inc ., 	490 	F . 3d 	27 , 	29 	(1st
Cir . 	2007) .
Rule 	59(e) 	allows 	a 	party 	to 	file 	a 	motion 	to 	alter 	or
amend 	a 	judgment 	within 	28 	days 	of 	its 	entry . 	Fed . R . Civ . P .
59 (e) . 	Such 	motions 	are 	the 	appropriate 	method 	for 	parties
- 2 -
Case 1:22-cv-11412-NMG Document 319 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 10

seeking 	to 	revise 	a 	judgment 	to 	include 	an 	award 	of 	prejudgment
interest . 	Crowe , 	365 	F . 3d 	at 	92 	(1st 	Cir . 	2004) .
B . Application
Plaintiff 	moves 	the 	Court 	to 	amend 	its 	judgment 	to 	include
an 	award 	of 	damages 	of 	$6 , 293 , 575 , 	the 	amount 	of 	unpaid 	invoices
as 	alleged 	in 	the 	complaint 	and 	stipulated 	to 	by 	the 	parties .
Defendant 	objects 	on 	the 	grounds 	that 	the 	Court 	did 	not
adjudicate 	all 	claims 	and/or 	counterclaims 	on 	summary 	judgment
and 	that 	a 	question 	remains 	as 	to 	applicable 	damages .
The 	Court 	disagrees . 	It 	granted 	summa ry 	ju dgment 	to
PerkinElmer 	on 	its 	breach 	of 	contract 	claim and 	all
counterclaims 	o f 	LabQ . 	In 	awarding 	summary 	judgment 	to
plaintiff , 	the 	Court 	explicitly 	found 	that
LabQ 	breached 	its 	contracts 	with 	PerkinEl mer
by 	failing 	to 	pay more 	than 	$6 	million 	for
the 	2022 	invoices .
Docket 	No . 	285 	at 	10 . 	While 	the 	phrase 	" more 	than 	$6 	million "
does 	not 	equate 	to 	$6 , 293 , 575 , 	given 	the 	factual 	stipulation
entered 	into 	by 	the 	parties , 	it 	is 	clear 	that 	the 	fi nding 	was 	a
reference 	to th e 	specific 	amount 	of 	unpaid 	invoices . 	The 	exact
dollar 	value 	was 	intended 	to 	be 	included 	in 	the 	final 	order 	and
its 	omission 	was 	a 	clerical 	error 	of 	the 	Court .
Similarly , 	plaintiff moves 	pursuant 	to 	Rule 	59(e) 	to 	amend
the 	judgme nt 	to 	include 	pre - judgment 	i n terest 	in 	the 	amount 	of
$2 , 265 , 687 	and 	post - judgment 	interest 	at 	the 	federal 	rate .
- 3-
Case 1:22-cv-11412-NMG Document 319 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 10

Defendant 	objects 	on 	the 	basis 	that 	interest 	cannot 	be
calculated 	where 	the 	principal 	damages 	rema i n 	in 	dispute .
Defendan 	agrees , 	however , 	that 	the 	applicable 	pre - judgment
interest 	rate 	is 	12% 	per 	year .
The 	contract 	between 	the 	parties 	specified 	that 	PerkinElmer
may 	impose 	interest 	on 	late 	payments , 	and , 	in 	Massachusetts ,
such 	a 	provision 	is 	enforceable . 	M. G. L . 	ch . 	231 , 	§6C ; 	Sullivan
v . 	Dumont 	Aircraft 	Charter , 	LLC , 	695 	F . 	Supp . 	3d 	173 , 	196 	(D .
Mass . 	2023) . 	Because 	the 	Court 	has 	found 	damages 	in 	the 	amount
of 	$6 , 293 , 575 , 	and 	because 	it 	agrees 	with 	plaintiff ' s
computation 	of 	pre-judgment 	interest , 	it 	will 	amend 	its 	judgment
to 	include 	interest 	in 	the 	amount 	of 	$2 , 265 , 687 .
Finally , 	as 	the 	initial 	order 	did 	not 	contain 	an 	award 	of
damages , 	it 	would 	be 	unfair 	to 	defendant 	to 	require 	post -
judgment 	interest 	from 	the 	date 	of 	that 	order . 	The 	Court 	will
therefore 	not 	award 	post - judgment 	interest 	in 	this 	case .
The 	Order 	dated 	September 	16 , 	2025 , 	(Docket 	No . 	285) 	will
therefore 	be 	amended 	to 	include 	an 	award 	of 	damages 	in 	the
amount 	of 	$6 , 293 , 575 	and 	pre - judgement 	interest 	in 	the 	amount 	of
$2 , 265 , 687 , 	for 	a 	total 	of 	$8 , 559 , 262 .
III. 	Motion 	for 	Attorneys' 	Fees
Plaintiff 	moves 	for 	attorneys ' 	fees 	in 	the 	amount 	of
$2 , 217 , 632 	and 	reimbursements 	of 	costs 	and 	expenses 	related 	to
the 	litigation 	in 	the 	amount 	of 	$1 , 477 , 260 . 	LabQ 	challenges 	the
- 4 -
Case 1:22-cv-11412-NMG Document 319 Filed 03/23/26 Page 4 of 10

motion 	on 	the 	grounds 	that 	1) 	PerkinElmer 	is 	not 	entitled 	to
fees 	associated 	with 	defending 	unrelated 	counterclaims , 	2) 	the
contractual 	langua ge 	does 	not 	allow 	for 	collection 	of 	any 	fees
and 	3) 	the 	requested 	fees 	are 	unreasonable .
A. Legal 	Standard
With 	respect 	to 	attorneys ' 	fees , 	Massachusetts 	follows 	the
American 	rule 	and 	denies 	recovery 	of 	fees 	absent 	a 	contract 	or
contrary 	statute . 	In 	re 	Volkswagen 	& Audi 	Warranty 	Extension
Li tig ., 	692 	F . 3d 	4 , 	21 	( 1st 	Cir . 	2012) . 	When 	a 	contract 	between
parties 	provides 	for 	fee 	shifting , 	as 	is 	the 	case 	here , 	the
question 	of 	what 	fees 	are 	owed 	is 	one 	of 	contract
interpretation . 	AccuSoft 	Corp . 	v . 	Palo , 	237 	F . 3d 	31 , 	61 	(1st
Cir . 	2001) .
B. Application
The 	contract 	between 	the 	parties 	provides 	that
[LabQ] 	shall 	reimburse 	PerkinElmer 	for 	all
costs 	incurred 	in 	collecting 	any 	late
payments 	that 	have 	n ot 	been 	disputed 	in 	good
faith 	within 	the 	thirty 	(30) 	day 	payment
period , 	in cluding 	without 	li mi tation , 	costs
of 	reasonable 	attorneys ' 	fee s .
i . 	Fees 	Related 	to 	Countercla i ms
LabQ 	begins 	by 	suggesting 	that 	fees 	incurred 	relative 	to
plaint iff ' s 	defense 	of 	defendant ' s 	counterclaim s 	are 	not 	" costs
incurred 	in 	collecting 	late 	payments ." 	It 	posits 	t h at 	the
counterclaims 	of 	breach 	of 	contract , 	gross 	negligence 	and 	u nfair
- 5-
Case 1:22-cv-11412-NMG Document 319 Filed 03/23/26 Page 5 of 10

and 	deceptive 	trade 	practices 	concerned 	a 	distinct 	theory 	of 	the
case 	and 	relie d 	upon 	facts 	and 	legal 	theories 	related 	to
defective 	products . 	The 	defense 	of 	those 	c l ams 	was , 	therefore ,
independent 	from 	plaintif f ' s 	collection 	of 	any 	late 	payments .
PerkinElmer 	responds 	that , 	because 	the 	legal 	theories 	underlying
the 	counterclaims 	and 	defenses 	were 	virtually 	identical ,
defending 	the 	counterclaims 	was 	necessary 	to 	the 	collection 	of
the 	late 	payments .
Defendant 	relies 	on 	AccuSoft 	Corp . 	v . 	Palo , 	237 	F . 3d 	31 ,
(1st 	Cir . · 2001) . 	In 	that 	case , 	the 	parties 	brought 	dua l 	motions
for 	contempt 	for 	violating 	the 	terms 	of 	the 	settlement
agreement . 	Id . 	at 	36 . 	The 	agreement 	provided 	that , 	upon 	a
breach , 	the 	moving 	party 	in 	a 	contempt 	action 	would 	be 	awarded
attorneys ' 	fees 	inc urr ed 	in 	such 	proceedings . 	Id . 	at 	59 . 	The
district 	court 	interpreted 	that 	language 	as 	awarding 	fees
related 	to 	the 	prevailing 	party ' s 	motion 	for 	contempt 	but 	not 	in
its 	defense 	against 	a 	competing 	claim 	of 	contempt . 	Id . 	at 	60 .
Conversely , 	p l aintif f 	relies 	on 	Citizens 	Bank 	of
Massachusetts 	v . 	Bahig 	Bishay , 	2002 	WL 	31375621 , 	(Mass . 	App . 	Ct .
Oct . 	22 , 	2002) , 	a 	case 	in 	which 	a 	plaintif f 	bank 	was 	awarded
attorneys ' 	fees 	related 	to 	the 	collection 	of 	a 	loan . 	In 	that
case , 	defendant 	lodged 	counterclaims 	against 	the 	bank 	that , 	if
successful , 	would 	have 	invalidated 	the 	collection 	of 	the 	debt .
Id . 	at 	*3 . 	The 	court 	found 	that 	attorneys ' · fees 	incurred 	in
- 6-
Case 1:22-cv-11412-NMG Document 319 Filed 03/23/26 Page 6 of 10

defending 	the 	counterclaims 	were 	appropriately 	awarded 	because
they 	were 	related 	to 	the 	litigation 	arising 	out 	of 	the
collection 	process . 	Id .
The 	Court 	concludes 	that 	the 	present 	case 	is 	more 	analogous
to 	the 	contract 	interpretation 	analysis 	in 	Accusoft . 	Just 	as 	in
Accusoft , 	this 	case 	requires 	the 	Court 	to 	determine 	the 	extent
to 	which 	a 	contractual 	fee 	shifting 	provision 	should 	be
enforced . 	Also , 	as 	in 	that 	case , 	the 	def endant 	here 	has
asserted 	its 	own , 	independent 	claims 	that 	may 	otherwise 	have
been 	brought 	notwithstanding 	the 	collections 	action . 	Defense 	of
those 	claims 	was 	ancillary , 	not 	essential , 	to 	the 	collection 	of
the 	debt . 	The 	Court 	finds 	that 	expenses 	incurred 	by 	PerkinElmer
in 	defense 	of 	the 	counterclaims 	were 	not 	to 	collect 	the 	debt 	and
are 	therefore 	not 	transferrable 	to 	LabQ 	under 	the 	contract .
Neither 	party 	has 	presented 	the 	Court 	with 	a 	description 	of
the 	fees 	that 	would 	allow 	it 	to 	differentiate 	those 	incurred 	in
connection 	with 	the 	claims 	f rom 	those 	incurred 	in 	connection
with 	the 	counterclaims. 	The 	Court 	will 	therefore 	apply 	a 	50 %
reduction 	to 	plaintiff ' s 	requested 	fees 	and 	costs .
ii. 	Good 	Faith 	Dispute 	of 	Invoices
Next , 	LabQ 	argues 	that 	PerkinElmer 	cannot 	collect 	fees
related 	to 	its 	collection 	efforts 	because 	LabQ 	disputed 	the
challenged 	payments 	in 	good 	faith 	and 	within 	the 	30 - day 	payment
period . 	It 	relies 	on 	a 	May 	12 , 	2022 , 	email 	from 	LabQ 	in 	which
-7 -
Case 1:22-cv-11412-NMG Document 319 Filed 03/23/26 Page 7 of 10

it 	informed 	plaintif f 	that 	there 	were 	issues 	wi th 	some 	of 	the
products 	it 	had 	received .
Even 	if 	such 	communication 	constitu_es 	a 	good 	faith
dispute , 	only 	one 	invoice 	for 	$771 	had 	been 	submitted 	within 	the
prior 	30 	days . 	LabQ 	has 	not 	presented 	any 	communication 	that
can 	fairly 	be 	construed 	as 	a 	good 	faith 	dispute , 	communicated
within 	the 	30 - day 	payment 	period 	of 	any 	other 	outstanding
invoice . 	It 	suggests 	that 	PerkinElmer 	bears 	the 	burden 	of
proving 	the 	absence 	of 	such 	a 	dispute 	but 	the 	Court 	is 	unaware
of 	any 	requirement 	on 	PerkinElmer ' s 	part 	to 	prove 	such 	a
negative . 	In 	any 	event , 	the 	Court 	concludes 	that 	the 	vast
majority 	of 	invoices 	at 	issue 	were 	not 	disputed 	and 	that
plaintiff 	is 	entitled 	to 	costs 	related 	to 	their 	collection .
iii. 	Reasonableness 	of 	Fees
Defendant 	argues 	that 	the 	requested 	fees 	are 	urireasonable
and 	that 	plaintiff 	should 	not 	be 	awarded 	fees 	related 	to
unsuccessful 	discovery 	motions 	or 	to 	the 	pending 	motion 	for
attorneys ' 	fees 	itself . 	Courts 	in 	Massachusetts 	ypically
employ 	the 	lodes 	ar 	approach 	when 	calculating 	contractual
attorneys ' 	fees , 	wherein 	fees 	are 	calculated 	by 	multiplying 	the
number 	of 	hours 	reasonably 	spent 	on 	the 	case 	by 	a 	reasonable
hourly 	rate . 	In 	re 	Volkswagen 	& Audi 	Warranty 	Extension 	Litig .,
692 	F.3d 	4 , 	21 	(1st 	Cir . 	2012) . 	Time 	spent 	in 	connection 	with
- 8 -
Case 1:22-cv-11412-NMG Document 319 Filed 03/23/26 Page 8 of 10

fee 	applicat ion s 	i s 	compensable , 	albeit 	often 	at 	a 	reduced 	rate .
Brewster 	v . 	Dukakis , 	3 	F . 3d 	488 , 	494 	(1st 	Cir . 	1993) .
Plaintiff 	has 	submitted 	to 	the 	Court 	the 	unobjected - to
hourly 	rates 	of 	all 	attorneys 	and 	staff 	who 	worked 	on 	the 	case ,
and 	the 	Court 	therefore 	concludes 	that 	they 	are 	reasonable .
Plaintiff 	has 	also 	submitted 	with 	its 	invoices 	a 	detailed
description 	of 	time 	spent 	litigating 	this 	matter , 	to 	which
defendant 	has 	simply 	objected 	as 	" unreasonable " 	wit hout 	further
explanation . 	The 	Court 	therefore 	concludes 	that 	the 	hours
expended 	on 	this 	matter 	were 	reasonable .
- 9-
Case 1:22-cv-11412-NMG Document 319 Filed 03/23/26 Page 9 of 10

... 	1 	1 .,,,
ORDER
For 	the 	f orgoing 	r easons :
1. 	Plaintiff ' s 	Motion 	to 	Alter 	Judgment 	(Docket 	No . 	287)
is 	ALLOWED . 	Plaintiff 	is 	awarded 	damages 	in 	the
amount 	of 	$6 , 293 , 575 	and 	pre - judgement 	interest 	in 	the
amount 	of 	$2 , 265 , 687 , 	for 	a 	total 	of 	$8 , 559 , 262 .
2 . 	Plaintiff ' s 	Motion 	for 	Attorneys ' 	Fees 	(Docket 	No .
292) 	is 	ALLOWED , 	in 	part , 	and 	DENIED , 	in 	part .
Plaintiff 	is 	awarded 	50% 	of 	the 	requested 	attorneys '
fe e s 	and 	costs 	f or 	a 	total 	award 	o f 	$1 , 847 , 446 .
So 	ordered.
Nathaniel 	M~ c;c;ton
Senior 	United 	States 	District 	Judge
Dated : 	March 2J , 	2026
-10 -
Case 1:22-cv-11412-NMG Document 319 Filed 03/23/26 Page 10 of 10