THOMASON v. RANDALL, 4:12-CV-4155. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20150122831
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jan. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 21, 2015
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge. Before the Court are Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 43 & 89). Defendants move to dismiss all claims against them contending that Scott Thomason lacks standing to bring these claims in his individual capacity, there was no contract between the parties, and if there was a contract, the Defendants did not breach the agreement. Plaintiff has responded. (ECF Nos. 52 & 95). Defendants have replied. (ECF No. 72). Plaintiff has filed a Sur-R
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge. Before the Court are Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 43 & 89). Defendants move to dismiss all claims against them contending that Scott Thomason lacks standing to bring these claims in his individual capacity, there was no contract between the parties, and if there was a contract, the Defendants did not breach the agreement. Plaintiff has responded. (ECF Nos. 52 & 95). Defendants have replied. (ECF No. 72). Plaintiff has filed a Sur-Re..
More
ORDER
SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge.
Before the Court are Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 43 & 89). Defendants move to dismiss all claims against them contending that Scott Thomason lacks standing to bring these claims in his individual capacity, there was no contract between the parties, and if there was a contract, the Defendants did not breach the agreement. Plaintiff has responded. (ECF Nos. 52 & 95). Defendants have replied. (ECF No. 72). Plaintiff has filed a Sur-Reply. (ECF No. 73). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.
For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 43 & 89) should be and hereby are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Thomason's implied contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud claims remain. His breach of contract, piercing the corporate veil, interference with contractual relationship or business expectancy, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
