Listen to this article
Where a defendant has filed a motion for possession pending final judgment in a claim and delivery action, that motion should be denied because the defendant has not established that the property will be damaged, destroyed, concealed, disposed of or used so as to substantially impair its value before trial.
“This matter is before the Court on Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Adient US LLC’s Verified Motion for Possession Pending Final Judgment in a Claim and Delivery Action or, Alternatively, for a Preliminary Injunction.
“Big Rapids Products, Inc. (‘Big Rapids’) manufactures stamped metal parts. Big Rapids alleges that it entered into an Agreement with Defendant Adient US, LLC (‘Adient’) whereby Big Rapids would supply 100% of its requirements for certain auto parts for Adient’s Toyota 380D Program. Big Rapids alleges that Adient breached the parties’ agreement because Adient has stopped ordering parts from Big Rapids and has demanded the return of certain tools used to make the parts. Big Rapids alleges that Adient seeks to financially benefit by breaching the Agreement and bringing the parts production in-house. It appears that Adient has resumed ordering parts from Big Rapids under a reservation of rights.
“Adient has filed a counterclaim alleging that Sections 22 and 25 of Adient’s terms and conditions require Big Rapids to immediately relinquish possession upon Adient’s request and that Big Rapids has refused to do so. Adient estimates that the tooling has a value of $1,325,000. Adient alleges counterclaims of Claim and Delivery (Count I); Breach of Contract (Count II) and Common Law and Statutory Conversion (Count III).
“Adient now moves for possession before final judgment under MCL 600.2920 and MCR 3.105(E) or, in the alternative a preliminary injunction under MCR 3.310(A).
“In order to grant the motion the Court must find that Adient has established ‘(i) that the plaintiff’s right to possession is probably valid; and (ii) that the property will be damaged, destroyed, concealed, disposed of, or used so as to substantially impair its value, before trial.’ MCR 3.105(E)(3)(b) (Emphasis added).
“Here Adient has established that its right to possession is probably valid.
“However, it does not appear that Adient can establish ‘that the property will be damaged, destroyed, concealed, disposed of, or used so as to substantially impair its value, before trial.’ Adient argues that Big Rapids’ continued possession will result in ‘wear and tear’ to the tooling but there is no indication that such ‘wear and tear’ would ‘substantially impair’ the value of the tool or that such ‘wear and tear’ would not occur if Adient or another entity used the tooling.
“Based on the foregoing, the Motion for Possession Prior to Judgment is denied. Big Rapids will remain in possession and will be restrained from ‘damaging, destroying, concealing, or disposing’ of the tooling. MCR 3.105(E)(4)(b). Additionally, in order to remain in possession of the tooling Big Rapids will furnish a penalty bond, payable to Adient in the amount of $100,000 and will agree ‘that [it] will surrender the property to the person adjudged entitled to possession and will pay any money that may be recovered against [it] in the action. MCR 3.105(E)(4)(b)(i) and (ii).
“As an alternative argument Adient seeks a preliminary injunction under MCR 3.310(A) requiring Big Rapids to allow Adient to immediately retrieve its property. Thus, Adient is seeking to achieve the same results without having to meet the requirements for a motion for possession pending final judgment.
“Allowing Adient to circumvent the requirements of MCL 600.2920 and MCR 3.105(E) by seeking the same relief, return of the tooling prior to final judgment, through the issuance of a preliminary injunction would undermine the legislature’s intent in setting forth the requirements in MCL 600.2920 and MCR 3.105(E).
“Moreover, even if Adient’s request for a preliminary injunction is analyzed under the relevant factors the request must be denied.
“Based upon the relevant factors the Court determines that Adient is not entitled to a preliminary injunction allowing Adient to immediately retrieve the tooling.”
