Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Peaker Energy Group, L.L.C. v. Cargill, Inc, 17-30031 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 17-30031 Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 17-30031 Document: 00514271383 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-30031 FILED December 13, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk PEAKER ENERGY GROUP, L.L.C.; ENERGY COAST LOGISTICS TERMINAL, L.L.C., Plaintiffs–Appellants, versus CARGILL, INCORPORATED; LOUISIANA SUGAR REFINING, L.L.C., Defendants–Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 2:14
More
Case: 17-30031 Document: 00514271383 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-30031 FILED December 13, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk PEAKER ENERGY GROUP, L.L.C.; ENERGY COAST LOGISTICS TERMINAL, L.L.C., Plaintiffs–Appellants, versus CARGILL, INCORPORATED; LOUISIANA SUGAR REFINING, L.L.C., Defendants–Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 2:14-CV-2106 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The plaintiffs sued under various state-law theories after negotiations for a lease were unsuccessful. The district court granted summary judgment * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-30031 Document: 00514271383 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2017 No. 17-30031 to the defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs could not prove lost profits or lost business value with reasonable certainty. The court issued a concise but adequate “Order and Reasons,” explaining that “Plaintiffs have failed to put forth evidence sufficient to prove with reasonable certainty that Plaintiffs’ venture, but for Defendants’ allegedly wrongful conduct, would have been suc- cessful and generated profits.” The court reasoned that “the combination [of seven specified factors] pushes the speculative and uncertain nature of the success.” We have reviewed the briefs, pertinent parts of the record, and the applicable law and have heard the helpful arguments of counsel. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer