Corporate Communication ) Services of Dayton LLC. v. ) on Appeal From the United ) States District Court for the McI Communications…

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0832n.06
No. 10-3562
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
CORPORATE COMMUNICATION )
SERVICES OF DAYTON LLC., )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ) SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
INC. D/B/A VERIZON BUSINESS )
SERVICES, )
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
Before: MARTIN and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; and STEEH, District Judge*
PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Corporate Communication Services of Dayton LLC appeals
the district court’s order denying its motion for partial summary judgment and granting in part
defendant MCI Communications Services Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff also
appeals the district court’s pre-trial order excluding plaintiff’s expert witness and precluding
plaintiff from conducting additional discovery, as well as the court’s exclusion of testimony
about damages offered by plaintiff at trial, and the granting of defendant’s motion for judgment
as a matter of law. Plaintiff brought this case against defendant to recover commissions allegedly
due on sales made pursuant to the parties’ written agreements. In granting defendant partial
summary judgment, the district court held that the agreements unambiguously required plaintiff
The Honorable George Caram Steeh, United States District Court Judge for the Eastern*
District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

to submit orders to be due a commission. Plaintiff admitted that it did not submit any orders on
behalf of the particular customer at issue.
After hearing oral argument and reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the
applicable law, this court determines that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel
opinion and AFFIRMS the district court’s decision on these issues for the reasons well stated by
the Honorable Thomas M. Rose in his opinion and order issued November 9, 2009, as well as the
December 4, 2009 order granting defendant’s motion in limine, and the April 16, 2010 judgment
as a matter of law.
2

-- 2 of 2 --