Strategic Energy Concepts, LLC v. Otoka Energy, LLC et al

Filing 62

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson dated November 18, 2016 58 . 2. Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss 44 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED I N PART as follows: a. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 1: Breach of Contract is DENIED; b. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 2: Breach of Fiduciary duty is DENIED; c. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 3: Breach of C ovenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is DENIED; d. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 4: Tortious Interference with Contract is DENIED; e. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 5: Unjust Enrichment is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Pl aintiff's claim for unjust enrichment against Otoka and BVBD, and otherwise DENIED; f. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 6: Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage is GRANTED; g. Defendants' motion to dismiss Co unt 7: Promissory Estoppel is GRANTED; h. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 8: Aiding and Abetting is DENIED; and i. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 9: Civil Conspiracy is GRANTED. 3. All claims in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 5 as to which Defendants' motion is GRANTED are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 1/3/17. (GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

STRATEGIC ENERGY CONCEPTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER
Civil File No. 16-463 (MJD/BRT)

OTOKA ENERGY, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Arthur G. Boylan and Christopher J. Haugen, Anthony Ostlund Baer &
Louwagie PA, Counsel for Plaintiff.
Brooks F. Poley, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, and Sean T. Carnathan
O’Connor and Carnathan and Mack, LLC , Counsel for Defendants State Street
Bank and Trust Company and Antrim Corporation.
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson dated
November 18, 2016. Defendants State Street Bank and Trust Company and
Antrim Corporation filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Specifically, they objected only to the portions of the Report and
Recommendation denying the motion to dismiss Counts 4, 5, and 8. They do not
object to the remainder of the Report and Recommendation; no other Defendants
1

have filed objections; and Plaintiff has not objected to the Report and
Recommendation.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the
record of the portion of the Report and Recommendation that has been objected
to. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court
adopts the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Thorson.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson dated November 18, 2016 [Docket
No. 58].
2. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 44] is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:.
a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count 1: Breach of Contract is
DENIED;
b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count 2: Breach of Fiduciary
duty is DENIED;
c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count 3: Breach of Covenant of
Good Faith and Fair Dealing is DENIED;
d. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count 4: Tortious Interference
with Contract is DENIED;
2

e. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count 5: Unjust Enrichment is
GRANTED IN PART with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for
unjust enrichment against Otoka and BVBD, and otherwise
DENIED;
f. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count 6: Tortious Interference
with Prospective Economic Advantage is GRANTED;
g. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count 7: Promissory Estoppel
is GRANTED;
h. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count 8: Aiding and Abetting
is DENIED; and
i. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count 9: Civil Conspiracy is
GRANTED.
3. All claims in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Docket No. 5] as to
which Defendants’ motion is GRANTED are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Dated: January 3, 2017

s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court

3