The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
HUNTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION. )
d/b/a SPARTON MILPITAS, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Judge Marvin E. Aspen
) Case No. 1:20-cv-4858
v. )
)
OMEGA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Judge:
Presently before us is Defendant Omega Global Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to
Reconsider the Court’s order Denying Its Motion to Dismiss. (Motion (Dkt. No. 24).) For the
following reasons, we deny Defendant’s Motion.
BACKGROUND
We assume familiarity with the relevant facts as detailed in our December 3, 2020 Order,
and thus do not fully recount them here. Hunter Tech. Corp. v. Omega Glob. Techs., Inc., No.
1:20-CV-4858, 2020 WL 7078382 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 3, 2020). The case’s posture so far, in short, is
that a buyer of diodes sued the seller for breach of contract in state court, the lawsuit was then
removed to federal court, and then the seller moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Id. at *1. We held that the purchase order’s forum selection clause providing for jurisdiction in
the Northern District of Illinois was “an enforceable contract as pleaded and is unaltered by the
invoice issued after partial performance.” Id. at *3.
LEGAL STANDARD
A motion for reconsideration may be brought to correct “manifest errors of law or fact or
to present newly discovered evidence.” Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., 90
F.3d 1264, 1269-70 (7th Cir. 1996). Such motions are therefore appropriate where a court
misunderstood a party’s position and made a decision that warrants reconsideration. See, e.g., id.
Nevertheless, motions to reconsider are disfavored. Santos v. Williams, No. 15-cv-5325, 2017
WL 2189102, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 18, 2017). They are so disfavored that the party bringing a
motion for reconsideration “bears a heavy burden, and motions for reconsideration are not at the
disposal of parties who want to rehash old arguments.” Id. (citing Patrick v. City of Chi., 103 F.
Supp. 3d 907, 911 (N.D. Ill. 2015)).
ANALYSIS
Defendant’s Motion argues that our December 3, 2020 Order contradicts Northrop
Corporation v. Litronic Industries, 29 F.3d 1173, 1177-78 (7th Cir. 1994) and Dresser v.
Gradall, 965 F.2d 1442 (7th Cir. 1992). We address those two cases in turn.
We begin with Northrop’s statement as for when the battle of the forms analysis is
triggered: “‘Battle of the forms’ refers to the not uncommon situation in which one business firm
makes an offer in the form of a preprinted form contract and the offeree responds with its own
form contract.” Northrop, 29 F.3d at 1174. The instant case is distinguishably pleaded. There,
Northrop (the buyer-plaintiff) sent several manufacturers, including Litronic (the seller-
defendant), a request to submit offers to sell Northrop a customized printed wire board as
designated by Northrop. Id. at *1175. The request stated that any purchase would be made by
means of a purchase order that would set forth terms and conditions that would override any
inconsistent terms in the offer. Id. In response, Litronic mailed an offer to sell Northrop four
boards for $19,000 apiece, to be delivered within six weeks. Id. The parties proceeded as if a
contract was executed, but problematically ignored the purchase order’s requirement that the
seller send a written acknowledgment to Northrop first. Id. at *1176. Accordingly, the battle of
the forms analysis applied. The battle of the forms in Northrop was helpful because it was
unclear which form was operational. See id. Unlike Northrop, the record before us at this
pleading stage indicates that Defendant accepted Plaintiff’s purchase order’s terms by delivering
half of the diodes without objection. (Motion at 3 – 4.) That acceptance, unlike Northrop,
occurred before it sent Plaintiff an invoice form that had competing terms. (Id.)1 Indeed, our
earlier holding acknowledged this distinguishing trait. See Hunter, 2020 WL 7078382 at *3
(“We do not opine on whether the outcome would have differed had the invoice been delivered
together with the first diode shipment.”). Therefore, this is not a battle of the forms scenario like
Northrop.2
Dresser, 965 F.2d at 1442 is also distinguishable. Like Northrop, Dresser’s offeror sent
a purchase order with its terms and the offeree responded with an acknowledgment and its own
terms. Id. at 1444. Then, despite those competing provisions, the parties acted as if a contract
had been formed. Id. This is different from the instant case because, here, the invoice form was
1 In full, Defendant states in its motion that Plaintiff “sent a purchase order to [Defendant] for
certain diodes” then “[Plaintiff] received half of the diodes” (which we held constituted
acceptance) then days later “[Defendant] sent [Plaintiff] its invoice for the diodes.” (Motion at
3—4.)
2 Nor does the pleaded course of dealing sway our analysis. True, the pleaded facts are that the
purchaser sent an invoice with certain terms following acceptance. But the pleaded facts do not
suggest whether the past invoices were sent before or contemporaneously with the acceptance.
Nor does the pleading suggest that the parties adopted the previous invoices’ terms.
sent after the purchase order’s terms were accepted by partial performance, thus the invoice’s
terms do not amount to a “competing form” that triggers the battle of the forms.*
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider is denied. (Dkt. No. 24.)
Additionally, the parties shall confer within 21 days of this Order and submit a joint status report.
The joint status report should include the following: principal legal issues remaining, a statement
of the remaining factual issues along with an indication as to any factual stipulations, a history of
settlement discussions among the parties and whether a court assisted settlement conference is
requested, an estimated number of depositions, a proposed fact discovery completion date, a
proposed expert discovery completion date (including dates for delivery of expert reports), a
proposed date for filing dispositive motions, the anticipated length of a trial, and the name of the
principal trial lawyers for each party. It is so ordered.
Honorable Marvin E. Aspen
United States District Judge
February 4, 2021
Chicago, Illinois
3 In the alternative to reconsideration, Defendant asks that we clarify the effect of the factual
findings in our December 3, 2020 Order. (Motion at 10-11.) Specifically, Defendant asks that
we clarify whether our holding made “an assumption about the terms of the parties’ agreement
for purposes of deciding Omega’s motion, or whether it was ruling as a matter of law that
[Plaintiff]’s purchase order is an enforceable contract.” (/d.) To clarify, our holding accepted the
pleaded facts as true under Rule 12. In doing so, we held that “The Purchase Order is an
enforceable contract as pleaded and is unaltered by the invoice issued after partial performance.”
Hunter, No. 1:20-CV-4858, 2020 WL 7078382 at *3 (emphasis added).