Midwest Medical Solutions, LLC v. Exactech U.S., Inc., No. 22-2250 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
This case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit involves a dispute between Midwest Medical Solutions, LLC and Exactech U.S., Inc. This is the second time the case has come before the court. The initial appeal by Midwest was regarding a summary judgment in favor of Exactech, which was based on the district court's interpretation of a non-compete clause in the parties' Sales Agreement. The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, finding the clause unambiguous, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
In the latest appeal, Exactech contends that the district court erred by denying its motion for leave to replead two counterclaims. Exactech had initially included these counterclaims in its pleadings but later removed them, believing they had been rendered moot by the district court's order interpreting the disputed contract language in Exactech's favor. Exactech attempted to reintroduce these counterclaims after the Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment. The district court denied Exactech's motion to amend its pleadings, citing Exactech's lack of diligence in adhering to scheduling deadlines and the absence of changed circumstances that would justify its delay.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. It found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Exactech's motion to amend, as Exactech had failed to establish good cause for amending the scheduling order. The court noted that Exactech had voluntarily chosen not to replead these counterclaims in its amended pleadings, and that this decision could not be considered a changed circumstance. The court further noted that Exactech could have pleaded these counterclaims in the alternative, rather than omitting them entirely.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Contracts. For the court's prior opinion concluding that the non-compete clause in the parties' contract was unambiguous, see Midwest Med. Sols. LLC v. Exactech U.S., Inc., 21 F.4th 1002 (8th Cir. 2021). On remand, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Exactech's motion to amend its pleadings on the grounds that Exactech had failed to establish good cause for amending the court's prior scheduling order; this court's opinion in the prior appeal did not represent a changed circumstance prior to which Exactech was unable to raise its reformation and recission counterclaims.
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.