-JJM Bear Creek Cranberry Co., LLC v. Cliffstar Corporation, No. 1:2010cv00770 - Document 81 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER granting 35 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 42 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendation re 62 . Case is referred back to Magistrate Judge McCarthy for further proceedings. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 7/6/2011. (JMB)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W ESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BEAR CREEK CRANBERRY CO., LLC, Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER 10-CV-770A v. CLIFFSTAR CORPORATION, Defendant. This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On January 24, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 35). On February 24, 2011, defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 42). On May 6, 2011, Magistrate Judge McCarthy filed a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 62), recommending that plaintiff s motion be granted and that defendant s motion be denied. Defendant filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on May 23, 2011. Plaintiff filed a response to defendant s objections on June 10, 2011. Defendant filed reply papers on June 17, 2011. The Court held oral argument on June 30, 2011. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and after reviewing the submissions from the parties, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation. The Court notes particularly that the State of W isconsin appears to lack any statutory authority to punish plaintiff or to impair its function in any way until the grace period described in W is. Stat. § 183.09025(1) passes. Since plaintiff filed the annual report in question within that grace period, the Court declines to impose an impairment through defendant s motion that would exceed what W isconsin itself is empowered to do under its laws. See also W is. Stat. § 183.1302(1) ( It is the policy of this chapter to give maximum effect to the principle of freedom of contract and to the enforceability of operating agreements. ). The Court s conclusion is consistent with W isconsin case law suggesting that the phrase lack of good standing implies some sort of loss or impairment of the ability to transact business. Cf. Huntoon v. Capozza, 204 N.W .2d 649, 656 (W is. 1973) (holding that a contract to purchase a restaurant was breached where the contract required the buyer to maintain the liquor license in good standing, but the license was later revoked by the city Common Council). Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and in Magistrate Judge McCarthy s Report and Recommendation, the Court grants plaintiff s motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 35) and denies defendant s cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 42). 2 This case is referred back to Magistrate Judge McCarthy for further proceedings. SO ORDERED. s/ Richard J. Arcara HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: July 6, 2011 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.