Corporate Communication Servic v. MCI Communication Service, Inc, No. 10-3562 (6th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 11a0832n.06 No. 10-3562 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT CORPORATE COMMUNICATION SERVICES OF DAYTON LLC., Plaintiff-Appellant,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. MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES INC. D/B/A VERIZON BUSINESS SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED Dec 12, 2011 LEONARD GREEN, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 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. 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
