There are two “agreements” that were reduced to writing and executed by the parties. Defendants argue there were only “preliminary discussions” between the parties and that no promises were made, nor agreements reached, to purchase augers from Harleman. 2 there were multiple discussions with Scudder regarding promises made by Pengo and that those discussions are reflected, in part, by email correspondence and deposition testimony submitted in opposition to summary judgment. However, the parties dispute the terms of the agreement with regard to the use and property rights of the drawings and 3-D models. Harleman states 1 The parties seem to agree that as part of the agreement, Harleman would send Pengo hand fabricated samples of auger heads to be reversed engineered to create drawings and 3-D models. The parties dispute the substance of the discussions between Scudder and Harleman. The terms of the agreement were initially negotiated between Dana Scudder, the Vice President, Sales and Marketing, at Pengo and Ron Harleman, the owner of Harleman. Pengo denies the existence of an agreement to purchase augers, and further states it never promised nor agreed to purchase augers from Harleman. One of the main disagreements is Harleman’s contention that as part of its decision to work with Pengo on the production of casted auger heads, Pengo promised to purchase 2,500 to 3,500 augers per year from Harleman. The drawings and models are then used to produce the tooling and casted auger heads.1 Eventually the parties agreed to work together on the production and sale of Harleman’s augers, however, the terms of that agreement are disputed and have led to the current lawsuit. One of the discussions between Harleman and Scudder involved Pengo creating sample augers and cast production augers for Harleman and specifically creating the two-dimensional drawings and three-dimensional models for Harleman. Pengo, through its employee Dana Scudder, approached Harleman about its rock augers. At some point in time Harleman began looking to have its rock heads casted by a third party. Harleman developed and patented a specific design of rock auger and sold those to its customers. BACKGROUND Harleman manufactures rock augers, which are a drilling tool, along with other tools and machinery. The multiple claims brought by Harleman arise out of the terms of alleged promises and agreements between Harleman and Pengo including Pengo’s alleged agreement to produce sample and production cast auger heads to Harleman Pengo’s 1 alleged agreement to purchase augers from Harleman and the alleged mishandling of confidential information provided by Harleman to Pengo in order to work on the sample and cast production of augers. Plaintiff Harleman Manufacturing, LLC., has brought its cause of action against Pengo Corporation and Dana Scudder, alleging Breach of Contract (Count I) Specific Performance of the Contract (Count II) Negligent Misrepresentation (Count III) Fraudulent Misrepresentation (Count IV) Tortious Interference with a Lawful Business (Count V) Conversion (Count VI) Prima Facie Tort (Count VII) Trade Secret Misappropriation (Count VIII) Negligence (Count IX) and Promissory Estoppel (Count X).
For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Defendant-Counter Plaintiff Pengo Corporation and Defendant Dana Scudder’s motion. Case No.: 14-cv-03498-MDH ORDER Before the Court is Defendant-Counter Plaintiff Pengo Corporation and Defendant Dana Scudder’s Motion for Summary Judgment. PENGO CORP., Defendant – Counterplaintiff and DANA SCUDDER, Defendant. 144 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION HARLEMAN MANUFACTURING, LLC, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff -Counterdefendant, vs.
0 kommentar(er)
