Salem Grain Company, Inc. v. Consolidated Grain & Barge Company

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Salem Grain Company, Inc. v. Consolidated Grain & Barge Company

Case Number
Call Date
May 25, 2017
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Case Location
Case Summary

A-16-0995 Salem Grain Company, Inc., a Corporation (Appellant) v. Consolidated Grain & Barge Co., Becky Cromer, Gary Jorn, Ray Joy, Bart Keller, Kevin Malone, Charles Radatz, Beth Sickel and John Doe I-IV and Jane Doe I-IV, real names unknown

Richardson County, Judge Daniel E. Bryan, Jr.

Attorneys: David A. Domina, Christian T. Williams (DominaLaw Group pcllo) (Appellant)--- Bonnie M. Boryca, Patrick Guinan (Erickson Sederstrom PCLLO) (Appellees Cromer, Joy, Keller and Radatz) --- Terry C. Dougherty, Audrey Svane, Kari A.F. Scheer (Woods & Aitken LLP) (Appellee Consolidated Grain & Barge Co.) --- Robert S. Keith, Alexis M. Wright (Engles Ketcham Olson & Keith PC) (Appellees Jorn, Malone & Sickel)

Civil: Damages under the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 59-1602 et seq.

Proceedings below: The district court dismissed Appellant’s Complaint, sustaining the motions to dismiss filed by all Appellees. The court found Appellees were immune to suit and also denied leave to file an amended complaint. All Appellees joined in filing a Petition to Bypass the Court of Appeals that was granted by the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Issues: Error 1: The court erred when it sustained the motion to dismiss filed by each Appellee on the grounds that the Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Neb Ct R Plead. § 6-1112(b)(6). Error 2: The court erred when it held that the Appellees are immune from suit under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, or any other immunity theory. Error 3: The court erred when it held that conspiracy claims and aiding and abetting claims require the allegation of an independent tort to have viability and are not, themselves, independent claims upon which relief can be granted. Error 4: The court erred when it denied leave to amend. Error 5: The court erred when it did not sustain Appellant's jury demand.

Schedule Code