Thomason v. Randall et al

Filing 113

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 43 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 89 Second Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Order for specifics.) Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on January 21, 2015. (mll)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION SCOTT THOMASON V. PLAINTIFF NO. 4:12-CV-4155 STEVE RANDALL, WARREN HANSON, STEVE FALER, SWS ENGRAVING, L.L.C, and AMERICAN LEGACY FIREARMS, INC. DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court are Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 43 & 89). Defendants move to dismiss all claims against them contending that Scott Thomason lacks standing to bring these claims in his individual capacity, there was no contract between the parties, and if there was a contract, the Defendants did not breach the agreement. Plaintiff has responded. (ECF Nos. 52 & 95). Defendants have replied. (ECF No. 72). Plaintiff has filed a Sur-Reply. (ECF No. 73). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration. For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 43 & 89) should be and hereby are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Thomason’s implied contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud claims remain. His breach of contract, piercing the corporate veil, interference with contractual relationship or business expectancy, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 21st day of January, 2015. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?