Stacks v. Bluejay Holdings LLC et al

Filing 82

OPINION AND ORDER, for the reasons stated in the Court's previous Opinion and Order 76 , the motions to dismiss are GRANTED as to Count I and DENIED as to Counts II through VI 79 . Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 4/12/11. (vjt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
JOHN B. STACKS
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 4:10CV00718 JLH

BLUEJAY HOLDINGS LLC; TEN X
HOLDINGS LLC; RICHARD F. BESTON, JR.;
JOHN W. BRANCH; and JASON MAPLES

DEFENDANTS

OPINION AND ORDER
On June 22, 2010, John Stacks filed a complaint in this Court against the defendants for
alleged violations of a promissory note; breach of contract; violations of the Arkansas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act (“ADTPA”), Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-101 et seq.; and deceit after Bluejay
Holdings allegedly failed to pay Stacks the agreed-upon purchase price for a sixty-five percent
interest in three water companies that Stacks owned. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Stacks’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue, arguing that venue
was governed by a forum selection clause in the promissory note that was signed by Bluejay
Holdings LLC and Ten X Holdings LLC. In an Opinion and Order filed September 29, 2010, the
Court determined that Count I of the complaint, which arose under the promissory note, should be
dismissed. Document #13. The Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the remaining
counts, however, reasoning that the forum-selection clause in the promissory note did not govern the
breach of contract or tort claims alleged in the complaint.
On March 10, 2011, Stacks filed an amended complaint against the defendants and asserted
all of the same claims originally made against the defendants as well as an additional claim for
rescission. Ten X Holdings, LLC, and Bluejay Holdings, LLC, filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue. In response, Stacks

concedes that Count I, which is the same promissory note claim that was alleged in the original
complaint, should be dismissed.
For the reasons the Court has already stated in its previous Opinion and Order, the motions
to dismiss are GRANTED with respect to Count I and DENIED with respect to Counts II through
VI. Document #79.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of April, 2011.

___________________________________
J. LEON HOLMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2