Superior Edge, Inc. v. Monsanto Company et al
Superior Edge, Inc. |
Monsanto Company and Site-Specific Technology Development Group, Inc. |
0:2012cv02672 |
October 19, 2012 |
US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
Blue Earth |
Franklin L. Noel |
John R. Tunheim |
Fraud or Truth-In-Lending |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 246 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER overruling Monsanto's 163 APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge; affirming 185 Order of the Magistrate Judge dated 9/11/2014 (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on December 16, 2014. (DML) |
Filing 184 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 86 Motion to Dismiss. 1. Motion is granted with respect to Monsanto's counterclaim for Professional Negligence (Count VII). That claim is dismissed with prejudice. 2. Motion is denied in all other respects.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on September 8, 2014. (DML) |
Filing 99 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting defendant's 71 Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim (Count II) is dismissed without prejudice (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on December 6, 2013. (DML) |
Filing 59 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1. Denying plaintiff's 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 2. Granting as follows defendant Monsanto's 22 Motion to Dismiss. a. Plaintiff's breach of contract claim (Count II) is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint incorporating the allegations of Count II into Count I. b. Plaintiff's Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim (Count VII), and Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim (Count IX) are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint with respect to the se claims. c. Plaintiff's fraud claim (Count III), conversion claim (Count V), and tortious interference claim (Count XI) are dismissed with prejudice. 3. Granting in part and denying in part defendant Specific Technology Development Group, Inc.'s 27 Motion to Dismiss. a. Defendant SST's motion to dismiss is granted with respect to Plaintiff's fraud claim (Count IV), conversio n claim (Count VI), and tortious interference claim (Count XII). These claims are dismissed with prejudice. b. Defendant SST's motion to dismiss is granted with respect to Plaintiff's Minnesota Uniform Decep tive Trade Practices Act claim (Count VIII). This claim is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint with respect to this claim. c. Defendant SST's motion to dismiss is denied with respect to Plaintiff's Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim (Count X). (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on August 9, 2013. (DML) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.