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)
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?