Free Statement - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-00097-WDM-MJW

Document 213

Filed 03/08/2006

Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case No.: 03-cv-00097 WDM-MJW

PRAIRIELAND PROCESSORS, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff, v. RIDGEFIELD FARMS, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability corporation, WEST-CONN MEAT CO., INC., a Connecticut corporation, and RICHARD GREENFIELD, Defendants, ELDON ROTH, REGINA ROTH, KEVIN LAFLEUR, and DONALD BABCOCK, Additional Counterclaim Defendants.

PLAINTIFF'S AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT'S CORRECTED STATEMENT OF ELEMENTS OF CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Prairieland Processors, Inc. ("Plaintiff"), by counsel, and pursuant to this Court's Order at the February 23, 2006 Final Pretrial Conference, respectfully submit the following corrected statement of the elements of its claims for relief as follows:

Case 1:03-cv-00097-WDM-MJW

Document 213

Filed 03/08/2006

Page 2 of 8

Goods Sold and Delivered (against Ridgefield) In order to prevail on its claim for goods sold and delivered, Prairieland must prove that: 1. Richfield is indebted to Plaintiff in the amount of $2,477,114.00 for goods

sold and delivered by Plaintiff to Ridgefield between August 12, 2002 and December 31, 2002. 2. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 5-12-102, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment for pre-

judgment interest against Ridgefield. See, Robb v. Universal Constructors, Inc., 665 F.2d 998, 1002 (10th Cir. 1981); North Drive-In Theatre Corp v Park-In Theatres Inc, 248 F.2d 232 (10th Cir. 1957).

-2-

Case 1:03-cv-00097-WDM-MJW

Document 213

Filed 03/08/2006

Page 3 of 8

Breach of Contract (against Ridgefield) In order to prevail on its claim for breach of contract against Defendant Ridgefield, Plaintiff must prove that: 1. 2. 3. 4. A contract existed between Prairieland and Ridgefield; Prairieland substantially performed the contract; Ridgefield failed to perform the contract; and Prairieland suffered damages as a result of Ridgefield's nonperformance.

-3-

Case 1:03-cv-00097-WDM-MJW

Document 213

Filed 03/08/2006

Page 4 of 8

Breach of Fiduciary Duty (against Defendant Ridgefield) In order to prevail on its claim for breach of fiduciary duty, Prairieland must prove that: 1. Defendant was acting as a fiduciary of Plaintiff with respect to the joint

venture between Plaintiff and Defendant; 2. 3. 4. Defendant breached a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff; Plaintiff sustained damages in the amount $1.5 million; and Defendant's breach of fiduciary duty was a cause of the Plaintiff's damages.

-4-

Case 1:03-cv-00097-WDM-MJW

Document 213

Filed 03/08/2006

Page 5 of 8

Intentional Interference with Contract (against Defendants Greenfield and West-Conn) In order to prevail on its claim for intentional interference with contract, Plaintiff must prove that: 1. Plaintiff had a contract with Defendant Ridgefield in which Ridgefield agreed

to pay Plaintiff for beef products sold by Plaintiff to Ridgefield; 2. Defendants Greenfield and West-Conn knew or reasonably should have

known of the contract; 3. Defendants Greenfield and West-Conn by words or conduct, or both,

intentionally caused Ridgefield not to perform its contract with the Plaintiff or interfered with Ridgefield's performance of the contract, thereby causing Ridgefield not to perform the contract with the Plaintiff; 4. The interference with the contract by Defendants Greenfield and West-Conn

was improper; and 5. The interference with the contract by Defendants Greenfield and West-Conn

caused the Plaintiff losses and damages.

-5-

Case 1:03-cv-00097-WDM-MJW

Document 213

Filed 03/08/2006

Page 6 of 8

Fraudulent Concealment (against Defendants Ridgefield and Greenfield) In order to prevail on its claim for fraudulent concealment against Defendants Ridgefield and Greenfield, Plaintiff must prove that: 1. disclose; 2. 3. The fact was material; Defendants concealed or failed to disclose the material fact with the intent of Defendants failed to disclose a past or present fact for which they had a duty to

creating a false impression of the actual facts in the mind of Plaintiff; 4. Defendants concealed or failed to disclose the fact with the intent that Plaintiff

would take a course of action it might not take if it knew the actual fact; 5. Plaintiff took such action or decided not to act relying on the assumption that

the concealed or undisclosed fact did not exist or was different from what it actually was; 6. 7. Plaintiff's reliance was justified; and This reliance caused damages or losses to the Plaintiff.

-6-

Case 1:03-cv-00097-WDM-MJW

Document 213

Filed 03/08/2006

Page 7 of 8

False Representation (against Defendants Ridgefield and Greenfield) In order to prevail on its claim for false representation against Defendants Ridgefield and Greenfield, Plaintiff must prove that: 1. 2. 3. Defendants made false representations of a past or present fact; The fact was material; Defendants made the representation knowing it to be false or they were aware

that Plaintiff did not know whether it was true or false; 4. Defendants made the representation with the intent that Plaintiff would rely on

the representation; 5. 6. 7. Plaintiff relied on the representation; Plaintiff's reliance was justified; and This reliance caused damages or losses to Plaintiff.

Dated this 8th day of March, 2006. DUCKER, MONTGOMERY, ARONSTEIN & BESS, P.C. By: s/David H. Stacy Marcus L. Squarrell David H. Stacy 1560 Broadway, Suite 1400 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-2828 Facsimile: (303) 861-2017 Email: [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PRAIRIELAND PROCESSORS, INC., ELDON ROTH, REGINA ROTH, DONALD BABCOCK AND KEVIN LAFLEUR

-7-

Case 1:03-cv-00097-WDM-MJW

Document 213

Filed 03/08/2006

Page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 8th day of March, 2006, a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT OF ELEMENTS OF CLAIMS FOR RELIEF was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses: [email protected] [email protected] Frank W. Visciano, Esq. Luis A. Toro, Esq. SENN·VISCIANO·KIRSCHENBAUM·MERRICK P.C. 1801 California Street, Suite 4300 Denver, Colorado 80202 Facsimile: 303-296-9101

By:

s/David H. Stacy Marcus L. Squarrell David H. Stacy 1560 Broadway, Suite 1400 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-2828 Facsimile: (303) 861-2017 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

-8-