Edvisors Network, Inc. v. Husser et al

Filing 29

RULING AND ORDER denying 20 Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 7/20/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
EDVISORS NETWORK, INC.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 14-62-JWD-RLB
CLINT HUSSER, ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively,
for Partial Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 20) filed by Defendants, Clint Husser and Jan E. Husser
(the “Hussers”). Plaintiff Edvisors Network, Inc. (“Edvisors”) opposes the motion. (R. Doc. 22).
No oral argument is necessary.
Considering the law and facts in the record, the Hussers’ motion is denied. Edvisors has
raised a genuine issue of material fact that their consent to the Insertion Order Agreement was
vitiated by fraud. Specifically, reasonable minds could conclude from Edvisors’ evidence that:
(1) the Hussers made a misrepresentation through the fraudulent leads;
(2) the Hussers did so to obtain an unjust advantage over Edvisors (namely, to obtain
more proceeds under the Agreement);
(3) that the error induced by the fraudulent leads related to circumstances substantially
influencing Edvisors’ consent to contract (specifically, that Edvisors would not have
entered into the Insertion Order Agreement had it known of the fraudulent activities);
and
(4) Edvisors could not have ascertained the truth without difficulty, inconvenience, or
special skill because, while Edvisors may have been aware of some anomalies with

the leads, it required special skill (in particular, the Calvert report), to conclude that
the leads were in fact fraudulent.
Thus, the Court denies the Hussers’ motion for summary judgment as to Edvisors’ claims related
to the Insertion Order Agreement.
Further, the Hussers mention in their motion that they seeks the dismissal of all of
Edvisors’ remaining claims, but they provides no analysis beyond the Insertion Order
Agreement. Because of the above findings related to fraud vitiating consent, and because the
Hussers have failed to meet their initial burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of
material fact as to Edvisors’ other claims, the Court denies the Hussers’ motion on Edvisors’
remaining issues.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, for Partial
Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 20) filed by Defendants, Clint Husser and Jan E. Husser is
DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 20, 2015.

S

JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

2