Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P and D are competing automotive-performance companies. They have engaged in litigation since 2000. In 2017, P sued S in Michigan state court, asserting three breach-of-contract claims. D moved to dismiss P's complaint as barred by res judicata which was granted. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held that issue preclusion and claim preclusion did not apply to Count II of the complaint, which alleged that Holley violated the Settlement Agreement by selling the breaching Ultra HP main bodies. P amended its complaint, leaving only Count II. Both parties now move for summary judgment. P argues that (1) D is liable for breach of contract because it violated the Settlement Agreement and (2) P is entitled to disgorgement of D's profits from the breach. D argues that P has failed to show that it was damaged by the breach.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.