Bakken Residential, LLC v. Cahoon Enterprises, LLC

Filing 52

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. denying defendant's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying plaintiff's 18 Motion for TRO; denying defendant's 21 Motion for Hearing; denying plaintiff's 22 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying plaintiff's 23 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (BG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
Bakken Residential, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Cahoon Enterprises, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Case. No. 4:12-cv-146

Bakken Residential, LLC (“Bakken”) and Cahoon Enterprises, LLC (“Cahoon”) entered into
agreement, with three addendums, in which Cahoon agreed to sell 42.74 acres of real property in
Ray, North Dakota, to Bakken for $3.4 million.1 On October 19, 2012, Bakken initiated the aboveentitled action, asserting that the parties were unable to close on the sale of the subject property
because of Cahoon’s breach of the parties’ agreement. It is seeking specific performance, or, in the
alternative, an award for damages under theories of breach of contract, quantum meruit, or unjust
enrichment.
On February 11, 2013, Cahoon filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in which it attributed
the parties inability to close on the sale of the subject property to Bakken’s difficulties in obtaining
financing. That same day Bakken filed a motion requesting the court to enter a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining Cahoon from advertising and/or selling the
property to a third-party. Bakken subsequently filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on its specific
performance claim, again asserting that the parties were unable to close on account of Cahoon’s

1

The agreement was executed by the parties in January 2012. The addendums were respectively executed by
the parties in January, April, and July 2012. (Docket Nos. 1-1 through 1-3). In the second and third addendums the
parties agreed to a closing date of July 31, 2012. (Docket Nos. 1-2 and 1-3).

1

breach of the parties’ agreement.
Repeatedly advised by the parties during periodic status conferences that they were engaging
in ongoing negotiations in an effort to resolve this matter, the court issued a series of orders
extending the briefing deadlines and otherwise holding parties’ motions in abeyance until October
21, 2014. (Docket Nos. 26-31, 40, 42, 47-48, and 50-51).
The court has reviewed all of the parties submissions to date.

In light of all that has

transpired since Bakken filed its Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction and given that damages appear at this point to be an adequate remedy, it is not inclined
to enjoin Cahoon from marketing or otherwise selling the subject property to a third-party.
Bakken’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Docket Nos. 18
and 22) is therefore DENIED.
Cahoon’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 17) and Bakken’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (Docket No. 23) are likewise DENIED as there are material facts in dispute as
to what the poorly drafted agreement required and/or why the parties were unable to close on the
sale of the subject property as originally contemplated. Cahoon’s request for a hearing on its motion
(Docket No. 21) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 24th day of February, 2015.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

2