Motion for Reconsideration, Opposition Filed in Diamond
Triumph v. Safelite Case
Judge James M. Munley's July 31 ruling that favored Safelite Group in Columbus,
Ohio, the lawsuit brought by Diamond Glass Companies (formerly Diamond
Triumph Auto Glass) was not the end of the legal battle now in its third
Diamond Glass filed a motion for reconsideration in August, as well as
a reply in support of its motion on November 11, responding to Safelite's
opposition to Diamond's motion for reconsideration.
Safelite's opposition to the motion, filed on October 31, included nine
points of argument. Safelite argued that reconsideration usually can be
won on a change of law or evidence or an error of law. "Reconsideration
is not for asking the Court to 'rethink' decisions, to relitigate, or
to raise arguments or evidence that could have been raised earlier,"
Safelite lawyers wrote in the Opposition.
Safelite also argues that Diamond's reconsideration is "not warranted
as to substantial deception" and that Diamond does not cite Lanham
Act cases or correctly apply the law, among other things.
Diamond counters that its request for reconsideration is appropriate because
it is asking the court to "clear errors of fact or law," as
it believes the finding that there was no "disputed factual issues
on Safelite's misleading statements to consumers regarding Diamond's pricing
policies and Diamond's claims administrations procedures," to have
been in error.
Lawyers for Diamond wrote that in its opposition, Safelite "completely
ignores Diamond's argument on reconsideration that no privilege should
apply to Safelite's statements to insured because Safelite was not a representative
of the insurance company or that it exceeded any statements about Diamond
pricing and services."
Not all documents filed in the case are available to the public, with
some having been sealed from the court and references to those documents
limited and quotes omitted from subsequent court documents that are considered
One paragraph, though, in Diamond's response probably rang true for both
"This case has dragged on for over four years. It has cost the parties
millions of dollars in legal fees and expenses and created uncertainty
and mistrust in the industry."
Stay tuned to glassBYTEs.com for more information about the case as it
HERE to read Safelite's Opposition to Plaintiff Diamond Triumph's
Motion for Reconsideration.
to read Diamond's Reply in Support of its Motion for Reconsideration.