Trooien v. Mansour

Filing 209

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting defendant Peter Mansour's 190 Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment; granting defendant Barry Roitblat's 194 Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on July 25, 2012. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Listing allegations supporting Trooien's claims) (DML)

Download PDF
Appendix A Trooien II Trooien III Trooien IV Allegations re: Sproqit revenue projections Mansour repeatedly told Trooien that the revenue projections received were “arbitrary and capricious,” “made with fraudulent intent,” and “false and flawed” “significant amounts were going to be obtained” Dismissed “Such a general allegation does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 9(b)” Dismissed Mansour told Trooien it was an “absolute fact” that Microsoft would acquire Sproqit Not dismissed SJ granted to Mansour Mansour told Trooien there were “contracts in place” with Bell Mobility Not dismissed SJ granted to Mansour “Properly dismissed by the district court” since not a false statement of past or existing fact nor pled with sufficient particularity. “Trooien has failed to present any statements or omissions of material fact to support his assertion that Mansour fraudulently represented that Sproqit would be acquired by Microsoft. Nor does the record support a conclusion that Mansour provided Trooien with false information as required for a negligent misrepresentation claim under Minnesota law.” “That the contract [with Bell Mobility] did not produce as hoped is not an actionable claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. Nor is it sufficient to support a claim of negligent misrepresentation.” Allegations re: Microsoft’s Possible Acquisition of Sproqit Mansour told Trooien Microsoft had given the “green light” to acquire Sproqit Mansour told Trooien he was “very good at maneuvering within Microsoft” Dismissed Dismissed “Trooien pled no particularized facts showing that Mansour supplied ‘false information’ when he stated that a particular Microsoft agent had given ‘the green light’ concerning the possible acquisition of Sproqit.” “Such a statement is merely an opinion, and is too ‘general and indefinite’ to be a representation of fact.” Appendix – P a g e | 1 Allegations re: Archos Mansour wrote to Trooien, “I refuse to let this thing die before I ship with Archos” Mansour told Trooien “we have to fulfill the Archos contract” 2005 e-mail from Archos to Mansour: “We have not a clear idea of whether we will need Sproqit.” Dismissed Claims against Roitblat Dismissed Dismissed Dismissed “cannot be characterized as an untrue statement of ‘past or existing fact’” Trooien did not sufficiently plead facts to show that this was “false information” “demonstrates that Archos was at that time still considering using Sproqit products, which would have required Sproqit to fulfill its contract” “We agree that the claims against Roitblat fail to satisfy Rule 9(b). . . . It is not sufficient to attribute alleged false statements to ‘defendants’ generally.” Appendix – P a g e | 2

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?