Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chamberlain v. Reddy Ice Holdings

April 28, 2010

JOHN CHAMBERLAIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
REDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: United States District Judge Paul D. Borman

CLASS ACTION

United States Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FEBRUARY 18, 2010 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE (DKT. NO. 60)

On February 18, 2010, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued an Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, for reasons and under terms stated on the record at a hearing held on February 18, 2010. (Dkt. No. 60.) Before this Court are Defendants' Objections Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Regarding the Magistrate Judge's February 18, 2010 Order. (Dkt. No. 64.) Plaintiffs have a filed a response to Defendants' objections (Dkt. No. 67) and Defendants have filed a reply (Dkt. No. 70.) For the following reasons the Court AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge's February 18, 2010 Order.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 17, 2009, Defendants Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. ("Reddy Ice"), William P. Brick ("Brick") and Steven J. Janusek ("Janusek")filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint. (Dkt. No. 43.) On January 18, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their Brief in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 48.) On January 19, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits Attached to the Affidavit of Steven J. Janusek and Related Portions of the Brief in Support of Defendants' Reddy Ice, Brick and Janusek's Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 51.) Defendants filed a response to the motion to strike (Dkt. No. 54) and Plaintiffs filed a reply (Dkt. No. 55.)

On February 18, 2010, Magistrate Judge Whalen held a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to strike and issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' motion to strike for the reasons and under the terms stated on the record at the hearing. (Dkt. No. 60.) Defendants now object to the portions of the Magistrate Judge's Order which strike Exhibits D, F and G, arguing that these Exhibits are either (1) referred to in Plaintiffs' Complaint; (2) subject to judicial notice and/or (3) are integral to the claims stated in Plaintiffs' Complaint and do not ask the Court to adopt disputed facts as true.

A. The Stricken Exhibits

Defendants argue that Exhibit F, an Asset Purchase Agreement between a predecessor in interest to Defendant Reddy Ice and several other companies, is specifically referred to in Plaintiffs' Complaint numerous times, is integral to Plaintiffs' claims and therefore is properly attached to Defendants' motion to dismiss and should be considered by the Court in ruling on Defendants' motion. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to disclose this Asset Purchase Agreement, along with other agreements, which were "secretively entered into, concealed from the public, and part of a collusive effort." (Defs.'s Obj. 7.) Defendants argue that these allegations figure centrally in Plaintiffs' Complaint and, therefore, the Asset Purchase Agreement should be considered by the Court in determining whether Plaintiffs' securities fraud claims survive Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs respond that Exhibit F is not specifically referenced in the Complaint and that, without further discovery, there is no way to ascertain whether Exhibit F is in fact the agreement referred to by Plaintiffs' confidential witnesses and referenced in generic terms at numerous points in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Plaintiffs argue that, therefore, the Asset Purchase Agreement, which is not specifically referenced in the Compliant, is being improperly offered to dispute factual allegations contained in the Complaint and was properly stricken.

Defendants argue that Exhibit D, a press release which Defendants argue establishes the fact that the Asset Purchase Agreement was in fact publicly disclosed, is a public document of which the Court can take judicial notice and is central to the subject matter of the Complaint. Defendants argue that Exhibit D is not being offered to dispute facts relating to Plaintiffs' claims but only to give a full picture of the manner in which the Asset Purchase Agreement was executed. Plaintiffs respond that Exhibit D is not specifically referenced in the Complaint and is improperly offered to dispute factual allegations in the Complaint and was, therefore, properly stricken.

Defendants argue that Exhibit G, excerpted pages from Reddy's Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, filed on form 10-K with the SEC on March 8, 2002, can be considered, although not attached to Plaintiffs' Complaint, because it constitutes an official SEC filing and is central to the Plaintiffs' Complaint. Defendants contend that they do not offer Exhibit G to challenge the factual allegations contained in the Complaint but rather to evidence Reddy's business practices, i.e. "that Reddy Ice enters into covenants not to compete in 'substantially all acquisitions.'" (Defs.'s Obj. 8.) Plaintiffs respond that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that this SEC filing relates to any of the statements that are alleged to be false and misleading in the Complaint. Plaintiffs further argue that even assuming that Exhibit G does refer to the Asset Purchase Agreement (Exhibit F), the disputed factual issues raised by Exhibit F warrant exclusion of Exhibit G.

B. Magistrate Judge Whalen's Ruling*fn1

At the hearing on February 18, 2010, Magistrate Judge Whalen ruled that the material proffered by Defendants in Exhibits D, F and G (among other exhibits not raised in Defendants's objections) relates "to disputed questions of fact that are more properly reserved for summary judgment." (Transcript of Hearing, February 18, 2010, p. 31) (hereinafter "Hr'g Tr. at __.") Beginning with Exhibit F, the Asset Purchase Agreement, the Magistrate Judge found that this Exhibit was not specifically referenced in the Complaint. The Magistrate Judge further found that there were numerous questions of fact surrounding Exhibit which could only be resolved with further discovery. (Id.) As such, the Magistrate Judge ruled, Exhibit F was a matter outside the pleadings, consideration of which would necessarily convert Defendants' motion into one for summary judgment.

Regarding Exhibits D and G, the Magistrate Judge found that these documents were outside the allegations in the Complaint and, like Exhibit F, tested the factual, as opposed to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.