Case 4:20-cv-00101-JHM-HBB Document 7 Filed 06/30/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 26
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
`OWENSBORO DIVISION
`
`STEVE PRITCHETT FARMS, LLC, ET AL.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`: Case No.: 4:20-cv-00101-JHM-HBB
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANT,
`ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`Now comes the Defendant, Archer-Daniels-Midland Company
`
`DM by and through
`
`the undersigned counsel, for its Answer and Counterclaim
`
` Steve Pritchett Farms,
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`remaining
`
`ADM admits
`
`ADM admits
`
`laint.
`
`
`
`ADM admits that it is organized as a Delaware Corporation. ADM denies the
`
`
`
`4.
`
`ADM admits that jurisdiction is proper in the United States District Court for the
`
`Western District of Kentucky. ADM also admits the residency of Plaintiffs as alleged. ADM
`
`further admits that it had a contract with Plaintiffs for the supply of animal feed. ADM also admits
`
`that Plaintiffs claim an amount-in-controversy in excess of the jurisdictional minimum for this
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
`OWENSBORO DIVISION
`
`STEVE PRITCHETT FARMS, LLC, ET AL.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`: Case No.: 4:20-cv-00101-JHM-HBB
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANT,
`ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`Now comes the Defendant, Archer-Daniels-Midland Company
`
`DM by and through
`
`the undersigned counsel, for its Answer and Counterclaim
`
` Steve Pritchett Farms,
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`remaining
`
`ADM admits
`
`ADM admits
`
`laint.
`
`
`
`ADM admits that it is organized as a Delaware Corporation. ADM denies the
`
`
`
`4.
`
`ADM admits that jurisdiction is proper in the United States District Court for the
`
`Western District of Kentucky. ADM also admits the residency of Plaintiffs as alleged. ADM
`
`further admits that it had a contract with Plaintiffs for the supply of animal feed. ADM also admits
`
`that Plaintiffs claim an amount-in-controversy in excess of the jurisdictional minimum for this
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00101-JHM-HBB Document 7 Filed 06/30/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 27
`
`Court. ADM denies the remaining
`
`to the extent they are inconsistent herewith.
`
`5.
`
`ADM admits the allegations contained i
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`
`6.
`
`ADM admits that it entered into contract numbers FSC112300 and FSC11223 with
`
`Steve Pritchett Farms, LLC. ADM denies for want of knowledge the accuracy/authenticity of the
`
`contracts that Plaintiffs attached to the Complaint, and further denies any allegation of Paragraph
`
`
`
`7.
`
`ADM states that Contract FSC112300 speaks for itself. ADM denies any allegation
`
`of
`
`inconsistent herewith.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`ADM denies
`
`ADM denies
`
`.
`
`
`
`10.
`
`ADM states that Contract FSC112300 speaks for itself. ADM denies any allegation
`
`of Paragraph 10
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`inconsistent herewith, and further denies any liability to
`
`11.
`
`ADM admits that it entered into a contract with B&L Stock Farm, but denies that
`
`COUNT II
`
`1 ADM denies any of the allegations contained in Paragraph
`
` Pritchett Farms, LLC, as
`
`inconsistent herewith.
`
`1
`
`
`
`-in-controversy alleged on the face of
`
`to the contracts held by Steve Pritchett Farms, LLC (which are for
`delivery of approximately $1 million worth of product). ADM alleges herein that the true contract
`with B&L is attached as Exhibit 3 to this Answer and Counterclaim. While that contract is not
`s held by Steve Pritchett Farms, the amount-in-controversy in this suit is
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00101-JHM-HBB Document 7 Filed 06/30/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 28
`
`12.
`
`ADM states that the Contract speaks for itself. ADM further denies any of the
`
`allegations c
`
`inconsistent herewith.
`
`13.
`
`ADM denies
`
`14.
`
`ADM denies
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`ADM states that its Contract with B&L Stock Farm, LLC speaks for itself. ADM
`
`denies any allegation of Paragraph 15
`
`inconsistent herewith, and further
`
`denies any liability to Plaintiffs.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant specifically denies ever having breached or wrongfully repudiated any
`
`
`
`contract with Plaintiffs.
`
`3.
`
`an inherent characteristic of
`
`, which is a generic aspect of the product(s)
`
`which could not be eliminated without substantially compromising the product(s) usefulness or
`
`desirability, which is recognized by the ordinary person with the ordinary knowledge in the
`
`applicable community.
`
`4.
`
`At all relevant times, this Defendant fully complied with all industry standards
`
`related to the design, formulation, marketing, manufacturing, labelling, sale or distribution of the
`
`feed product at issue, and consequently Plaintiffs have no cause of action against this Defendant.
`
`5.
`
`alleged pr
`
`their own.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`.
`
`individual contracts on
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00101-JHM-HBB Document 7 Filed 06/30/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 29
`
`6.
`
`for damages, if any.
`
`Plaintiffs may have failed to mitigate their damages, if any.
`
`Plaintiffs may have failed to join all necessary and indispensable parties.
`
` or unclean hands.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`and/or service of process.
`
`11.
`
`Pla
`
`intervening, superseding cause.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs waived any breach of Defendant by their words and/or conduct.
`
`n, lack of
`
`consideration, or mistake.
`
`14.
`
`precedent.
`
`15.
`
`hereby denied.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses which may
`
`become manifest after/during discovery.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE
`
`dismissed with prejudice with all costs assessed to the Plaintiffs.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST
`STEVE PRITCHETT FARMS, LLC,
`AND B&L STOCK FARM, LLC
`
`Now comes the Defendant/Counterclaimant, ADM, and for its Counterclaim against
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Steve Pritchett Farms, LLC and B&L Stock Farm, LLC, states as follows:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00101-JHM-HBB Document 7 Filed 06/30/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 30
`
`FACTS
`
`1.
`
`On or about June 3, 2019, ADM entered forward feed contract FSC112232 with
`
`Steve Pritchett Farms, LLC. A copy of the contract is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`2.
`
`On or about August 16, 2019, ADM entered forward feed contract FSC112300 with
`
`Steve Pritchett Farms, LLC. A copy of the contract is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`3.
`
`On or about August 21, 2019, ADM entered into forward feed contract FSC112301
`
`with B&L Stock Farm, LLC. A copy of the contract is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
`
`4.
`
`aintiffs provided for the sale of swine feed (in pellet
`
`form), product #12347AAA54. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs used this feed in a
`
`commercial mouse farm.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, Steve Pritchett Farms, LLC and B&L Stock Farms,
`
`LLC are closely related entities, and conduct business in concert with one another.
`
`6.
`
`Beginning in July, 2019, Plaintiff Steve Pritchett Farms, LLC acting in concert and
`
`consultation with Plaintiff B&L Stock Farm, LLC, began to falsely accuse ADM of breaching its
`
`contracts with Steve Pritchett Farms (and later B&L Stock Farm), by alleging that the feed
`
`provided to each of them lacked a commercially acceptable level of pellet durability.
`
`7.
`
`Pellet durability tests conducted by ADM revealed that the feed that had been
`
`provided to Plaintiffs well exceeded the industry standard pellet durability for the type of feed that
`
`Plaintiffs contracted to receive
`
`commercial use.
`
`8.
`
`Even in the face of this information, Plaintiffs breached their contracts with ADM,
`
`by: (1) falsely stating that ADM had breached its contract with them; (2) repudiating their contracts
`
`with ADM, and (3) failing to perform the remainder of their contractual obligations.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00101-JHM-HBB Document 7 Filed 06/30/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 31
`
`COUNT I
`AGAINST STEVE PRITCHETT FARMS, LLC
`
`ADM held contracts FSC112232 and FSC112300 with Steve Pritchett Farms, LLC.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`As explained herein, Steve Pritchett Farms, LLC breached its contract with ADM,
`
`by: (1) falsely stating that ADM had breached its contract with Steve Pritchett Farms, LLC; (2)
`
`repudiating its contracts with ADM, and (3) failing to perform the remainder of its contractual
`
`obligations.
`
`11.
`
`it is liable to ADM for damages, including but not limited to:
`
` of contract,
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`
`
`expectation damages, and damages related to any stale inventory or overhead costs.
`
`COUNT II
`AGAINST B&L STOCK FARM, LLC
`
`ADM held contract FSC112301with B&L Stock Farm, LLC.
`
`As explained herein, B&L Stock Farm, LLC breached its contract with ADM, by:
`
`(1) falsely stating (directly or in consultation and acting in concert with Steve Pritchett Farms,
`
`LLC) that ADM had breached its contract with B&L Stock Farm, LLC, (2) repudiating its contract
`
`with ADM, and (3) failing to perform the remainder of its obligations.
`
`14.
`
`ADM for damages, including but not limited to:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`
`
`
`
`provided by the contracts,
`
`expectation damages, and damages related to any stale inventory or overhead costs.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00101-JHM-HBB Document 7 Filed 06/30/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 32
`
`WHEREFORE, ADM respectfully requests:
`
`1.
`
`A judgment against Steve Pritchett Farms, LLC and B&L Stock Farm, LLC, for
`
`damages, in an amount to be determined at trial;
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs;
`
`3.
`
`And such other relief as the Court may find just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`s/ Nathan A. Lennon
`Nathan A. Lennon (96205)
`REMINGER CO., LPA
`250 Grandview Drive, Suite 550
`Ft. Mitchell, Kentucky 41017
`T: 859.426.7222
`F: 859.283.6074
`Email: nlennon@reminger.com
`Attorney for Defendant,
`Archer-Daniels-Midland Company
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00101-JHM-HBB Document 7 Filed 06/30/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 33
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 30th day of June, 2020, a true and accurate copy of the
`
`
`
`foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of
`
`, and constitutes service by rule:
`
`Charles E. Moore, Esq.
`CHARLES E. MOORE, PSC
`110 South Court Street
`P. O. Box 210
`Morganfield, KY 42437
`cemoore@moorelaw.org
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`Mark A. Brittingham, Esq.
`224 Fairway Vista Road
`Murphysboro, IL 62966
`mabritt@siu.edu
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Nathan A. Lennon
`Nathan A. Lennon (0091743)
`
`
`
`8
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
