Buck's, Inc. v. QuikTrip Corporation
ORDER denying MOTION for Reconsideration of Order Denying Summary Judgment 47 filed by QuikTrip Corporation. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (CCB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BUCK'S, INC., a Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
QUIKTRIP CORPORATION, an
This matter is before the Court on QuikTrip's motion to reconsider
(filing 47) the Court's October 17, 2016 Memorandum and Order (filing 41).
That motion will be denied.
This lawsuit arises from negotiations for and sale of land in Omaha,
Nebraska. Specifically, Buck's, Inc. claims that it had a business expectancy
in the property, and that just before Buck's was able to purchase the land,
QuikTrip filed a "bogus lien" to "impede [on] the sale." Filing 21 at 13. This
action was intentional and unjustified, Buck's claims, and therefore tortious
interference. Buck's seeks a constructive trust over the property and lost
profits, or, alternatively, an order of judgment against QuikTrip for damages
to be proved at trial. Filing 1-1 at 3. QuikTrip filed a counterclaim, seeking to
quiet title to the property. Filing 4 at 7.
QuikTrip moved for summary judgment on all claims. Filing 18. That
motion was denied in the Court's October 17 Memorandum and Order (filing
41). QuikTrip then filed the instant motion, urging the Court to reconsider its
denial of summary judgment. Filing 47. In support of its motion, QuikTrip
points to newly obtained evidence which, it argues, resolves all remaining
issues of fact. It also argues that the Court, in denying the motion for
summary judgment, improperly relied on deposition testimony, and that such
reliance "was a clear and manifest error of law warranting reconsideration."
Filing 48 at 1. Buck's counters that material issues of fact remain, and that
the Court properly considered the evidence at issue. Filing 55 at 16.
After reviewing the record, including QuikTrip's newly obtained
evidence, the Court concludes that material issues of fact remain as to Buck's
claim for tortious interference and QuikTrip's counterclaim to quiet title. The
Court further concludes that, upon review of the October 17, 2016
Memorandum and Order, the Court properly considered the evidence before
it. Accordingly, there are no grounds for altering or amending the prior
Memorandum and Order, and QuikTrip's motion for reconsideration (filing
47) will therefore be denied.
As a final matter, the Court acknowledges the parties' dispute as to
whether the instant motion should be construed as arising under Rule 54(b),
as QuikTrip argues, or under 60(b), as Buck's contends. For the purposes of
this motion, the Court assumes without deciding that the less rigorous
standards of Rule 54(b) apply.1 Indeed, the Court's result would be the same
regardless of whether it applied Rule 54(b) or Rule 60(b).
IT IS ORDERED that QuikTrip's motion for reconsideration (filing 47)
Dated this 22nd day of December, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge
As QuikTrip acknowledges, the specific standard for a motion under Rule 54(b) is unclear.
However, several federal district courts have found the standard to be "less exacting than
would be a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which is in turn less
exacting than the standards enunciated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)." Kirt v.
Fashion Bug # 3252, Inc., 495 F. Supp. 2d 957, 965 (N.D. Iowa 2007); see also Doctor
John's, Inc., v. City of Sioux City, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1027 (N.D. Iowa 2006); Wells'
Dairy, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 336 F. Supp. 2d 906, 909 (N.D. Iowa 2004).
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?