ATKINSON CANDY COMPANY v. KENRAY ASSOCIATES INC et al, No. 4:2002cv00242 - Document 190 (S.D. Ind. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - Based upon this court's Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand Evidentiary Hearing 189 , the following motions must be addressed: 1) Defendant's Motion to Strike 176 is denied. Plaintiffs' Motio n to Strike Affidavit of Chuck McGee 179 is denied. 2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Set Aside Covenant Not to Execute Based Upon Fraud in the Inducement 162 , which had previously been taken under advisement, is now denied. The entry of this order is intended to clarify the court's decision for purposes of any appellate review and to confirm that the court's Entry on Plaintiffs' Motion to Set Aside Covenant Not to Execute Based Upon Fraud in the Inducement 181 is deemed to be the final order of the court with respect to the issues raised in the Plaintiffs' Motion to Set Aside Covenant Not to Execute Based Upon Fraud in the Inducement 162 . Because an Agreed Judgment has already been entered 156 and is not otherwise modified, no separate final judgment will enter. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 12/13/2011. (JLM) Modified on 12/13/2011 (JLM).

Download PDF
ATKINSON CANDY COMPANY v. KENRAY ASSOCIATES INC et al Doc. 190 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION ATKINSON CANDY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. KENRAY ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4:02-cv-242-WGH-SEB ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS This matter is before the Honorable William G. Hussmann, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge, sua sponte. Based upon this court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Evidentiary Hearing entered on December 5, 2011 (Docket No. 189), the following motions must be addressed: 1. The Defendants’ Motion to Strike filed on April 25, 2011 (Docket No. 176) is DENIED, and the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Affidavit of Chuck McGee filed on May 5, 2011 (Docket No. 179) is likewise DENIED. 2. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside Covenant Not to Execute Based Upon Fraud in the Inducement filed on January 14, 2011 (Docket No. 162), which had previously been taken under advisement, is now DENIED because Plaintiff is unable to show that there was fraud in the inducement of the clause itself, nor can Plaintiff establish a breach of the Covenant aside from its claim regarding fraudulent inducement. (See Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Evidentiary Hearing Dockets.Justia.com filed on December 2, 2011, at Docket No. 188). Therefore, the court finds that the integration clause is effective, and the Covenant must be enforced as written. The entry of this order is intended to clarify the court’s decision for purposes of any appellate review and to confirm that the court’s Entry on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside Covenant Not to Execute Based Upon Fraud in the Inducement entered on June 29, 2011 (Docket No. 181) is deemed to be the final order of the court with respect to the issues raised in the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside Covenant Not to Execute Based Upon Fraud in the Inducement filed on January 14, 2011( Docket No. 162). Because an Agreed Judgment has already been entered in this case (Docket No. 156) and is not otherwise modified, no separate final judgment will enter. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 13, 2011 __________________________ William G. Hussmann, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of Indiana Electronic copies to: C. Zan Turcotte LAW OFFICE OF PERCY L. ISGITT, PC zturcotte@isgitt-law.com Derrick H. Wilson MATTOX MATTOX & WILSON dhw@mattoxwilson.com -2- Percy L. Isgitt LAW OFFICES OF PERCY L. “WAYNE” ISGITT pisgitt@isgitt-law.com Eric Thomas Eberwine WATERS TYLER HOFMANN & SCOTT LLP eeberwine@wthslaw.com Rodney Lee Scott WATERS, TYLER, SCOTT, HOFMANN & DOANE, LLC rscott@wthslaw.com Tricia Kirkby Hofmann WATERS TYLER HOFMANN & SCOTT LLC thofmann@wthslaw.com D. Bryan Wickens WARD TYLER & SCOTT bryan@wardtylerscott.com -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.