LOBSTER 207 LLC v. PETTEGROW et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
LOBSTER 207, LLC, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:19-CV-00552-LEW
)
WARREN B. PETTEGROW, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT
The matter arises on the Pettegrow Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the
Pleadings (ECF No. 552). 	With the Motion, Defendants seek judicial reevaluation of
Plaintiff’s claim for breach of the Noncompetition Agreement and certain of Plaintiff’s
fraud contentions. 	See Mem. Dec. and Order on Defs.; Mots. to Dismiss (ECF No. 72);
Order on Pettegrow Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Summary J. (ECF No. 422).
Concerning the alleged breach of the Noncompetition Agreement, Defendants
maintain that their post-closing capacity to continue operating as a “lobster buying station”
was left unbridled by the contracts they signed1 (most notably section 1 of the Supply and
Offtake Agreement) and, on that basis, seek dismissal of all claims associated with their
alleged proactive buying of lobsters for the purpose of reselling them to Plaintiff at markup.
I am not persuaded that Defendant’s interpretation of the contractual relationship is clear
1 The relevant contracts include not only the Noncompetition Agreement, but also the Asset Purchase
Agreement and the Supply and Offtake Agreement.
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 600 Filed 10/02/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
and unambiguous, let alone compelled by the pleadings. 	Defendants may present their
contentions to the finder of fact, the final decisionmaker concerning the intent of the parties
on contractual matters that are not otherwise foreclosed by a legal ruling.
Nor am I persuaded by Defendants’ argument that the Plaintiffs have alleged facts
that compel dismissal of the challenged fraud allegations based on the application of the
economic loss doctrine. In the event that the jury returns a verdict for Defendants on the
civil conspiracy claim but against them on one of the associated fraud claims, then there
may or may not be an issue concerning application of the economic loss doctrine, as such
a verdict would conceivably separate the Defendants from Warren Pettegrow’s alleged
breach of fiduciary duties but still impose liability based on some other, uncertain extra-
contractual duty. However, the pleadings standing alone do not require me to unravel that
hypothetical mystery at this time.
The Pettegrow Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No.
552) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 2nd day of October, 2024.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 600 Filed 10/02/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>