Case 1:03-cv-00097-WDM-MJW
Document 208
Filed 03/02/2006
Page 1 of 7
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 DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT OF ELEMENTS OF CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff Prairieland Processors, Inc., by its counsel, and pursuant to this Court's Order at the February 23, 2006 Final Pretrial Conference, respectfully submit the following statement of the elements of their claims for relief as follows: Goods Sold and Delivered (against Ridgefield) In order to prevail on its claim for goods sold and delivered, Prairieland must prove that:
Case 1:03-cv-00097-WDM-MJW
Document 208
Filed 03/02/2006
Page 2 of 7
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). Breach of Fiduciary Duty (against Defendant Greenfield) In order to prevail on its claim for breach of fiduciary duty, Prairieland must prove that: 1. 2. Defendant Greenfield made a false misrepresentation of an existing fact; Defendant Greenfield knew that the representation was false or knew that the
Defendant did not know whether the representation was true or false 3. 4. on; 5. 6. The representation resulted in damage; Defendant Greenfield was acting as a fiduciary of Plaintiff with respect to the Defendant Greenfield was ignorant of the falsity of the representation; Defendant Greenfield made the representation with an intention that it be acted
joint venture between Plaintiff and Defendant; In order to prove that Defendant Greenfield was a fiduciary, Plaintiff must prove that:
-2-
Case 1:03-cv-00097-WDM-MJW
Document 208
Filed 03/02/2006
Page 3 of 7
1.
Plaintiff placed trust or confidence in Defendant Greenfield with respect to all
business activities and financial transactions of the joint venture; 2. Greenfield; 3. Plaintiff's trust or confidence was accepted, invited or acquiesced in by Plaintiff acted reasonably in placing such trust or confidence in Defendant
Defendant Greenfield; 4. Defendant Greenfield agreed to, assumed responsibility to or represented that
he would act for the benefit of the Plaintiff with respect to all business activities and financial transactions of the joint venture; 5. 6. 7. losses. Intentional Interference with Contract (against Defendants Greenfield and West-Conn) In order to prevail on its claim for intentional interference with contract, Prairieland must prove that: 1. Plaintiff had a contract with Defendant Ridgefield in which Ridgefield agreed Defendant Greenfield breached his fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff; Plaintiff sustained damages in the amount $1.5 million; and Defendant Greenfield's breach of fiduciary duty was a cause of the Plaintiff's
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-
Case 1:03-cv-00097-WDM-MJW
Document 208
Filed 03/02/2006
Page 4 of 7
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. Fraudulent Concealment (against Defendants Ridgefield, Greenfield and WestConn) In order to prevail on its claim for fraudulent concealment against Defendants Ridgefield, Greenfield and West-Conn, Prairieland 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. Plaintiff's reliance was justified; and
-4-
Case 1:03-cv-00097-WDM-MJW
Document 208
Filed 03/02/2006
Page 5 of 7
7.
This reliance caused damages or losses to the Plaintiff.
False Representation (against Defendants Ridgefield, Greenfield and WestConn) In order to prevail on its claim for false representation against Defendants Ridgefield, Greenfield and West-Conn, 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.
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.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2006.
-5-
Case 1:03-cv-00097-WDM-MJW
Document 208
Filed 03/02/2006
Page 6 of 7
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
-6-
Case 1:03-cv-00097-WDM-MJW
Document 208
Filed 03/02/2006
Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 2nd day of March, 2006, a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS' 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]
-7-