Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Target Corp. v. LCH Pavement Consultants, LLC

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

August 9, 2013

Target Corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
LCH Pavement Consultants, LLC; United Paving Company, a division of Superior Paving Co., Inc.; American Pavement Solutions Inc.; Asphalt Maintenance Inc.; Leslie J. Bailey; Keith Heutzenroeder; and Lois Wade, Defendants

Page 1000

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1001

James J. Hartnett, IV, Esq., John H. Hinderaker, Esq., and Michelle E. Weinberg, Esq., Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, counsel for Plaintiff.

Aaron D. Hall, Esq., and Lucas J. Thompson, Esq., Twin Cities Law Firm, LLC, counsel for Defendants LCH Pavement Consultants, LLC, Leslie Bailey, and Lois Wade.

Andrew H. Bardwell, Esq., Rolin L. Cargill, Esq., and William R. Skolnick, Esq., Skolnick & Shiff, PA; and David E. Durchfort, Esq., Kosnett & Durchfort, counsel for Defendant United Paving Company.

Andrew S. Birrell, Esq., Paul C. Dworak, Esq., and Timothy R. Schupp, Esq., Gaskins, Bennett, Birrell, Schupp, LLP, counsel for American Pavement Solutions Inc.

Adam R. Fracht, Esq., and Ted L. Walker, Esq., The Walker Firm; and Amy M. Sieben, Esq., Bradley D. Fisher, Esq., and Leah K. Flygare, Esq., Fisher Bren & Sheridan, LLP, counsel for Asphalt Maintenance Inc.

OPINION

Page 1002

JEFFREY J. KEYES, United States Magistrate Judge.

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Target Corporation's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 198.) The Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's motion on July 30, 2013. Based on the parties' submissions and arguments, together with all pleadings, records, and files herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 198), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted to the extent it requests leave to seek punitive damages against Defendants LCH Pavement Consultants, LLC, Leslie Bailey, Keith Heutzenroeder, and Lois Wade relating to the alleged fraud claim pleaded in the Second Amended Complaint. The motion is otherwise denied. A Third Amended Complaint adding only the punitive damages request for relief mentioned above shall be filed and served within seven days of this Order; and

2. The attached Memorandum is incorporated by reference.

MEMORANDUM

I. Introduction

In its motion to amend, Plaintiff Target Corporation (" Target" ) seeks to re-allege its claims for fraud and for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.[1] (Doc. No. 201, Aff. of Michelle Weinberg (" Weinberg Aff." ) ¶ 2, Ex 1 (Proposed Third Am. Compl.) at 65, 71.) Additionally, Target seeks to add--for the first time--claims for fraud in the inducement and violation of Section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936. ( Id. at 63, 73.) Finally, Target seeks to add punitive damages. ( Id. at 74.) Defendants LCH Pavement Consultants, LLC (" LCH" ), Leslie Bailey, and Lois Wade (collectively

Page 1003

" the LCH Defendants" ), do not oppose the motion. (Doc. No. 234.) Defendants United Paving Company (" United" ), American Pavement Solutions Inc. (" American" ), and Asphalt Maintenance Inc. (" Asphalt" ), and their principals (collectively " the paving contractors" ), oppose the motion, arguing that the motion is untimely, that Target failed to show good cause for filing the motion after the deadline for amending pleadings ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.