Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’ s action, alleging that defendant tortiously interfered with plaintiff’s contracts with third-parties when it manipulated price of ethanol downward, which caused plaintiff to receive less money on said contracts. Dist. Ct., in attempting to apply Nebraska law to plaintiff’s lawsuit, concluded that: (1) plaintiff could not proceed as alleged in instant complaint because plaintiff had failed to identify third-parties with whom it had contracts with which defendant had interfered; and (2) plaintiff could not use theory of its claim, i.e. section 766A of Restatement (Second) of Torts, where section 766A claims had not yet been recognized as cognizable by Nebraska Supreme Court. Dist. Ct. further observed that had it determined that Nebraska law recognized section 766A claims, it would have allowed plaintiff to amend its complaint and attach specific contracts. Ct. of Appeals, in vacating Dist. Ct.’s order, found that Dist. Ct. could properly find that plaintiff must plead more than generalized allegation that it had valid third-party contracts that were affected by defendant’s alleged manipulation of ethanol market. However, remand was required, because, although Nebraska Supreme Court has not resolved whether plaintiff could use section 766A theory to proceed on tortious interference with contract claim, Dist. Ct. should have examined Nebraska case law to determine how Nebraska Supreme Court would rule on said issue. Moreover, on remand, Dist. Ct. may want to certify question to Nebraska Supreme Court.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Contract