COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
James Buchl – Appellant
Versus
Gascoyne Materials – Respondent
No. 22-3115 ___________________________
James Buchl; Doren Chatinover
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellees
v.
Gascoyne Materials Handling & Recycling, L.L.C.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Western ____________
Submitted: October 19, 2023 Filed: April 30, 2024 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge,1 LOKEN and COLLOTON,2 Circuit Judges. ____________ LOKEN, Circuit Judge.
1 Judge Smith completed his term as chief judge of the circuit on March 10, 2024. See 28 U.S.C. § 45(a)(3)(A). 2 Judge Colloton became chief judge of the circuit on March 11, 2024. See 28 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). In 2011, Jay Buchl and Doren Chatinover (“Plaintiffs”), electrical engineers with experience working in oil fields, entered into an oral at-will contract with Gascoyne Materials Handling & Recycling (“Gascoyne”) to work as project managers for a division of Gascoyne known as GMHR Field Services, performing electrical contracting design and installation in the Bakken oil field of North Dakota. After five profitable years, Gascoyne stopped making monthly payments under the contract in January 2017. Plaintiffs ended the relationship in February and filed this diversity action on March 9, 2017.
Plaintiffs’ initial Complaint alleged eleven causes of action. Gascoyne moved to dismiss and asserted counterclaims. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for fraud/deceit. In response to the parties’ subsequent cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted Plaintiffs a declaratory judgment that they are entitled to 50 percent of GMHR Field Services’ net profits during their term of employment at Gascoyne; dismissed all partnership-related claims; and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of a joint venture, for a receiver, and for unjust enrichment. The case proceeded to a bench trial on Plaintiffs’ remaining claims for breach of contract and conversion and on Gascoyne’s counterclaims for breach of contract, fraud/deceit, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty.
At an eight-day trial in September 2021, eleven witnesses testified and more than 5,000 pages of exhibits were submitted. The parties submitted post-trial briefs and Proposed Findings of Fact. On April 26, 2022, the district court issued its 103- page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including 306 findings of fact and 42 conclusions of law. Buchl v. Gascoyne Materials Handling Recycling, L.L.C., No. 1:17-cv-00048, 2022 WL 7739567 (D.N.D. Apr. 26, 2022). The court found that Gascoyne had underpaid Plaintiffs by $822,199 and entered judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor in that amount, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest. The court dismissed Gascoyne’s counterclaims.
-2- On May 24, 2022, Gascoyne filed a post-trial motion to alter or amend, raising the issues now presented on appeal. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing Gascoyne’s arguments “have previously been addressed, are without merit, and are an inappropriate attempt to relitigate and recast their previously rejected arguments and evidence.” The district court modified the award of post-judgment interest but otherwise denied the motion, finding “no reason to alter its ruling”:
This was a business relationship that can best be described as an absolute nightmare. . . . The bookkeeping was a catastrophe -- an accounting fiasco of which [Gascoyne
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.