RM Campbell Industrial, Inc. v. Midwest Renewable Energy LLC

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

RM Campbell Industrial, Inc. v. Midwest Renewable Energy LLC

Case Number
S-15-0529
Call Date
April 28, 2016
Court Number
Douglas
Case Summary

S-15-529, RM Campbell Industrial, Inc. (appellee) v. Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC (appellant)

Douglas County, Hon. Timothy P. Burns

Attorneys: Karl Von Oldenburg (Brumbaugh & Quandahl) (appellee); Jerrold L. Strasheim (appellant)

Civil: breach of contract

Proceedings below: RM Campbell Industrial, Inc. (Campbell) brought this breach of contract action against Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC (MRE). MRE filed a motion to dismiss alleging that Campbell was a foreign company and it had not obtained a certificate of authority, and therefore, it could not maintain this proceeding. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. MRE also filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that Campbell's claim was barred by claim preclusion and issue preclusion. The court denied the motion for summary judgment. After a jury trial, the jury found in favor of Campbell and a judgment was entered against MRE in the amount of $154,510.98. MRE appeals.

Issue: MRE asserts that the district court erred when it (1) failed to grant MRE's motion for summary judgment, (2) failed to grant MRE's motions to dismiss, (3) failed to grant MRE's motions for a directed verdict, (4) determining there was sufficient evidence for a jury and submitting to the jury questions regarding whether KL acted as MRE's agent when KL entered into the subcontract and that KL had actual or apparent authority to bind MRE to the subcontract, (5) determining article 2 of the Nebraska Uniform Commercial Code applied to the subcontract and instructing the jury on provisions of the Nebraska UCC regarding the formation of contracts, (6) determining there was a jury question regarding whether the subcontract was enforceable between MRE and Campbell, (7) failing to determine and instruct the jury that Campbell had to prove it substantially performed its obligations under the subcontract in order to recover for breach, (8) determining that evidence of claimed damages by Campbell was sufficient for a jury question on breach of contract damages, and giving the jury an incorrect jury instruction instead of instructing the jury on quantum meruit, (9) determining there was sufficient evidence for the jury regarding the question of whether MRE proximately caused damages to Campbell of any amount, and (10) failing to give MRE's requested instructions and failing to instruct the jury on MRE's defenses.