Agropur, Inc. v. Scoular Company, The

Justia Dockets & Filings Eighth Circuit Minnesota District Court Agropur, Inc. v. Scoular Company, The

Agropur, Inc. v. Scoular Company, The

Plaintiff:	Agropur, Inc.
Defendant:	Scoular Company, The
Case Number:	0:2017cv01247
Filed:	April 19, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Office:	DMN Office
County:	XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:	Steven E. Rau
Presiding Judge:	Joan N. Ericksen
Nature of Suit:	Other Contract
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 20, 2018	Filing 110 ORDER granting 101 Motion for Further Consideration of Sealing regarding sealed documents for. Permanent Sealing GRANTED for Document Number(s): 75. Order on continued sealing becomes final on 9/10/2018 unless further timely submissions are filed.(Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau on 8/20/2018. (EMA)
August 8, 2017	Filing 34 ORDER: (1) Defendant The Scoular Company's Partial Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint [Dkt. No. 20 ] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: (a) Count I of Plaintiff Agropur, Inc.'s C omplaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to the extent it alleges an express warranty based solely on the email attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint. (b) The Scoular Company's motion to dismiss Count II is DENIED. (c)The Scoular Company must serve a responsive pleading to the Complaint within 14 days of the date of this Order.(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on August 8, 2017. (CBC)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 20, 2018

Filing 110 ORDER granting 101 Motion for Further Consideration of Sealing regarding sealed documents for. Permanent Sealing GRANTED for Document Number(s): 75. Order on continued sealing becomes final on 9/10/2018 unless further timely submissions are filed.(Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau on 8/20/2018. (EMA)

August 8, 2017

Filing 34 ORDER: (1) Defendant The Scoular Company's Partial Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint [Dkt. No. 20 ] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: (a) Count I of Plaintiff Agropur, Inc.'s C omplaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to the extent it alleges an express warranty based solely on the email attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint. (b) The Scoular Company's motion to dismiss Count II is DENIED. (c)The Scoular Company must serve a responsive pleading to the Complaint within 14 days of the date of this Order.(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on August 8, 2017. (CBC)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Agropur, Inc. v. Scoular Company, The
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Agropur, Inc.
Represented By:	Jeffrey W Post
Represented By:	Anupama D Sreekanth
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Scoular Company, The
Represented By:	Eric A Bartsch
Represented By:	Margaret E Dalton
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?