Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_07-cv-02015/USCOURTS-arwd-2_07-cv-02015-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

TEMPUR-PEDIC

INTERNATIONAL, INC. PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 07-2015

WASTE TO CHARITY, INC.; BROCO 

SUPPLY, INC.; JACK FITZGERALD; 

ERIC VOLOVIC; HOWARD HIRSCH; 

THOMAS SCARCELLO; NELSON SILVA; 

CLOSE OUT SURPLUS AND SAVINGS, 

INC.; and ERNEST PEIA DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Now on this 28th day of November 2007, there comes on for

consideration Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Counterclaim

of Separate Defendant Broco Supply, Inc. and supporting brief

(Docs. 138-39). Separate Defendant Broco Supply filed no

response.

Plaintiff contends the counterclaim should be dismissed for

failure to state facts upon which relief can be granted.

Alternatively, Plaintiff contends that to the extent the

counterclaim alleges a breach of contract by Plaintiff, it should

be dismissed as it fails to identify any contract between

Plaintiff and Separate Defendant Broco Supply. For the reasons

set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Amended

Counterclaim of Separate Defendant Broco Supply, Inc. is GRANTED.

STANDARD OF REVIEW.

In ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the court must

accept the allegations contained in the counterclaim as true, and

Case 2:07-cv-02015-RTD Document 188 Filed 11/28/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

The Court does not find that the counterclaim includes a breach of contract claim, 1

and that claim is not addressed.

Page 2 of 3

all reasonable inferences from the counterclaim must be drawn in

favor of Separate Defendant Broco Supply. See Hafley v. Lohman,

90 F.3d 264, 266 (8th Cir. 1996). The counterclaim should not be

dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears to a

certainty that the counterclaimant would not be entitled to relief

under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the

claim. See Rucci v. City of Pacific, 327 F.3d 651, 652 (8th Cir.

2003). See also, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).

ANALYSIS.

In its counterclaim (Doc. 118), Separate Defendant Broco

Supply contends that Plaintiff is liable for tortious interference

with a business expectancy. Under Arkansas law, the tort of 1

interference with a business expectancy consists of the following

elements: (1) a valid business expectancy, (2) of which the

tortfeasor knew and (3) with which he intentionally interfered (4)

causing a loss of the expectancy and (5) resulting damages.

Windsong Enterprises, Inc. v. Upton, 233 S.W.3d 145 (Ark. 2006).

The Court has reviewed Separate Defendant Broco Supply’s

counterclaim and concludes that it fails to allege the second

element of a tortious interference claim; specifically, that

Plaintiff knew of any valid business expectancy that Separate

Defendant Broco Supply had with another buyer, including the

Case 2:07-cv-02015-RTD Document 188 Filed 11/28/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Page 3 of 3

Venezuelan buyer referred to in the counterclaim. Therefore,

taking all of the facts alleged in the counterclaim as true and

drawing all inferences in favor of Separate Defendant Broco

Supply, the counterclaim fails to state a claim for tortious

interference with a business expectancy under Arkansas law.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 138) is GRANTED and the

counterclaim (Doc. 118) is DISMISSED.

CONCLUSION.

For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to

Dismiss Amended Counterclaim of Separate Defendant Broco Supply,

Inc. is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of November, 2007. 

/s/ Robert T. Dawson 

HONORABLE ROBERT T. DAWSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:07-cv-02015-RTD Document 188 Filed 11/28/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>