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.

Beaulieu v. Stockwell

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

January 2, 2019

Allen Beaulieu, individually and d/b/a Allen Beaulieu Photography, Plaintiff,
v.
Clint Stockwell, an individual; Studio 1124, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; Thomas Martin Crouse, an individual; Charles Willard “Chuck” Sanvik, an individual, and Does 3 through 7, Defendants.

          Russell M. Spence, Jr., Esq., Parker Daniels Kibort LLC, counsel for Plaintiff.

          Michael L. Puklich, Esq., Neaton & Puklich, P.L.L.P., counsel for Defendants Clint Stockwell and Studio 1124, LLC.

          Edward F. Fox, Esq., Lauren Shoeberl, Esq., and Lewis A. Remele, Jr., Esq., Bassford Remele, counsel for Defendant Charles Willard Sanvik.

          Eva Wood, Esq., Outfront MN, counsel for Defendant Thomas Martin Crouse.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          DONOVAN W. FRANK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         This Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants Clint Stockwell (“Stockwell”) and Charles Willard Sanvik (“Sanvik”) on December 7, 2018. (Doc. Nos. 220, 221.) The Court now addresses the remaining issues in the case, including the status of Defendants Thomas Martin Crouse (“Crouse”) and Studio 1124, LLC (“Studio 1124”), Plaintiff's state-law claims, and Defendants' counterclaims.[1]

         BACKGROUND

         The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly set forth in the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order granting summary judgment in favor of Stockwell and is incorporated by reference here. (See Doc. No. 221 (“Stockwell Judgment”).) The Court notes particular facts relevant to this Order below.

         A. Defendants Crouse and Studio 1124

         Plaintiff Allen Beaulieu individually and d/b/a Allen Beaulieu Photography (“Beaulieu”) alleges that Crouse conspired to deprive Beaulieu of his original photographs and to use the stolen photographs to Beaulieu's detriment. Beaulieu brings four claims against Crouse: (1) conversion (Count Four); (2) unjust enrichment (Count Five); (3) tortious interference with prospective advantage (Count Seven); and (4) injunctive relief (Count Two). (See Doc. No. 47 (“Am. Compl.”).)

         Studio 1124 is a single member limited liability company, solely owned by Stockwell. (Am. Compl. ¶ 6.) Beaulieu brings eight claims against Studio 1124, the same claims he brought against Stockwell: (1) copyright infringement; (2) injunctive relief; (3) willful statutory infringement; (4) conversion; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) fraud; (7) tortious interference with prospective advantage; and (8) violation of Minnesota's Vulnerable Adult Act.

         B. Plaintiff's State-Law Claims

         This Court has original jurisdiction over this action because Count One, copyright infringement, arises under federal law pursuant to U.S.C. 17 §§ 101, et. seq. 28 U.S.C. ยงยง 1331, 1338(a). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Beaulieu's state-law claims (Counts Two-Eight) because they are so related to his federal claim that they form part of the ...


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.