Adams, et al v. USA
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON FRAUD CLAIMS granting in part and denying in part 1797 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
TIMM ADAMS, et al.,
Case No. 4:CV 03-49-BLW
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
FRAUD CLAIMS (DKT. 1797)
The Court has before it DuPont’s motion for summary judgment. The motion is fully
briefed and at issue. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion.
DuPont seeks summary judgment on plaintiffs’ fraud claims. DuPont points to specific
testimony of ten plaintiffs that they did not hear any of the alleged misleading representations by
DuPont officials and did not rely on any of them. DuPont asserts that these ten plaintiffs are
representative of all the remaining plaintiffs, and that all the fraud claims should be dismissed
because the critical element of reliance is missing.
The plaintiffs agree that the ten plaintiffs singled out by DuPont have no fraud claim, but
assert that these ten are not representative of the remaining plaintiffs. The parties then argue
over who has the burden of coming forward with the evidence on the remaining plaintiffs.
Every plaintiff has now been deposed on the fraud issue, and so the record contains
Memorandum Decision & Order - 1
evidence regarding the reliance – or lack thereof – for each plaintiff. Regardless of who
identifies the testimony, the Court will want to examine it for each plaintiff before determining
whether any particular claim should be dismissed. Under these circumstances, the Court is not
going to dismiss any claim without examining the deposition testimony.
DuPont recognized this possibility and has filed separate motions for summary judgment
that do just that – identify the deposition testimony for each plaintiff and point out why it is
insufficient to establish fraud. The Court will take those motions up at a later point, and nothing
contained in this decision establishes any precedent for those motions. Because those motions
deal specifically with each plaintiff, and the present motion does not, the Court will deny in large
part the present motion, granting it only as to the ten plaintiffs that both sides agree have no
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion for summary judgment
(docket no. 1797) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is granted to the extent
it seeks to dismiss the fraud claims under Count XV of the complaint as to the following
plaintiffs: (1) Timm Adams, (2) Mark Neilson, (3) Max Fife, (4) Jim Tiede, (5) Boyd Bingham,
(6) Miles Rowe, (7) Spencer Maughan, (8) Ron Bartholoma, (9) Sherril Stallings, and (10) Rick
Bauer. The motion is denied in all other respects.
Memorandum Decision & Order - 2
DATED: September 7, 2011
Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge
Memorandum Decision & Order - 3
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?