Case 1:22-cv-01004-JDB-jay Document 1 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`EASTERN DIVISION
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`WALT GOODMAN FARMS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NO. ____________
`
`
`VS.
`
`
`HOGAN FARMS, LLC and
`CHARLES PHILIP HIGDON,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`COMPLAINT
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Walt Goodman Farms, Inc., is a Kentucky corporation with its principal
`
`business office at 6035 State Route 94 West, Hickman, Kentucky. Walter Goodman is the
`
`president and registered agent for Walt Goodman Farms, Inc.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant, Hogan Farms, LLC, is a Tennessee limited liability company with its
`
`principal business office at 10034 Pointe Cove, Lakeland, Tennessee. The late David C.
`
`Hogan, Sr. is listed as the registered agent. The members of Hogan Farms, LLC are believed to
`
`be David Hogan, David Clay Hogan, Jr., Linda Hogan and Lacy Hogan Hurley and all are
`
`believed to be residents of Tennessee.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant, Charles Philip Higdon, is a citizen and resident of Obion County,
`
`Tennessee, residing at 5104 Claude Tucker Road, Union City, Tennessee, and is an employee of
`
`Nutrien Ag Solutions in Union City, Tennessee.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01004-JDB-jay Document 1 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID 2
`
`4.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 (diversity of
`
`citizenship) as the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars
`
`($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs, and the Plaintiff and each of the Defendants are
`
`citizens of different states such that complete diversity of citizenship exists.
`
`5.
`
`Venue in this District Court is proper as the matters which are the subject of this
`
`litigation occurred in Obion County, Tennessee within this judicial district and division.
`
`FACTS
`
`6.
`
`Walt Goodman Farms, Inc. was incorporated in 1995. Its principal shareholder,
`
`Walter Goodman has been engaged in farming since 1970. Austin Goodman began working in
`
`the farming operation full-time in 2005. Jacob Goodman began working full-time in 2014.
`
`7.
`
`On March 24, 2001, David C. Hogan and Linda Hogan purchased Two Hundred
`
`Seventy (270) acres in Fulton County, Kentucky, more particularly described as Section 26 and
`
`27, Township/North, Range 6, from Walt Goodman Farms, Inc.
`
`8.
`
`On April 3, 2001, David C. Hogan and wife, Linda Hogan, and Walt Goodman
`
`Farms, Inc. entered into a Rental Contract and Lease of Farm Land, a copy of which is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit “A”. David and Linda Hogan agreed to lease the above-described farm to
`
`Walt Goodman Farms, Inc. “for a term of the life of Walter Goodman commencing as of the date
`
`hereof and ending on the year following the date of death of Walter Goodman”.
`
`9.
`
`Walt Goodman Farms, Inc. rented two farms in Obion County, Tennessee, from
`
`Jesse B. Murphy, the father of Linda Hogan, from 1994 until his death in June 2001. David and
`
`Linda Hogan entered into an oral contract with Walt Goodman Farms, Inc. under which the
`
`parties agreed that Walt Goodman Farms, Inc. would continue to rent those farms and two
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01004-JDB-jay Document 1 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID 3
`
`additional farms David and Linda Hogan owned under the same terms in the lease attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit “A”.
`
`10.
`
`On December 3, 2012, David and Linda Hogan conveyed the farm in Fulton
`
`County, Kentucky to Hogan Farms, LLC. On November 9, 2012, the farms owned by David
`
`and Linda Hogan in Obion County, Tennessee were conveyed to Hogan Farms, LLC.
`
`11. Walt Goodman, Austin Goodman, Jacob Goodman and David Hogan maintained
`
`an amicable relationship for many years.
`
`12.
`
`In 2017, Defendant, Charles Philip Higdon, began inserting himself in the farming
`
`operation on behalf of Defendant, Hogan Farms, LLC without legal authority to do so.
`
`
`
`13.
`
`In 2017, Hogan Farms (sic) and Goodman Farms (sic) entered into a
`
`Memorandum of Understanding, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”, which
`
`outlines the agreement of the parties to place two (2) irrigation units on farms owned by Hogan
`
`Farms, LLC in Obion County, Tennessee, referred to as Murphy 1, 2 and 3. According to the
`
`agreement, Hogan Farms, LLC would pay the cost of the irrigation units in the same manner
`
`crop revenue was allocated: 1/3 to be paid by Hogan Farms, LLC and 2/3 to be paid by
`
`Goodman Farms, Inc. A payment schedule was attached to the Memorandum of Understanding
`
`which provided that “should Goodman Farms, Inc. cease to farm Murphy 1, 2 and 3 before all
`
`payments are made, they will no longer be obligated to make the remaining payments”.
`
`14. Walt Goodman Farms, Inc. made four (4) payments totaling $125,419.17 in
`
`addition, Walt Goodman Farms, Inc. incurred expenses in connection with the irrigation system.
`
`15.
`
`On or about May 27, 2021, Walt Goodman Farms, Inc., Walter Goodman, Austin
`
`Goodman and Jacob Goodman were notified by Hogan Farms, LLC that they would no longer be
`
`allowed to farm any of its farmland after the end of crop year 2021. A copy of the written
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01004-JDB-jay Document 1 Filed 01/10/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID 4
`
`notice is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. The notice stated that the irrigation payment will not
`
`be required in 2021 or thereafter.
`
`UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`
`
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-15 above and
`
`incorporates the same herein by reference.
`
`17. Walt Goodman Farms, Inc. farmed one farm in Obion County, Tennessee,
`
`pursuant to an oral agreement with Hogan Farms, LLC. The terms of the oral agreement were
`
`the same as the terms of the written lease between the parties for the farm located in Fulton
`
`County, Kentucky, under which Walt Goodman Farms, Inc. could lease the farm until the year
`
`after Walt Goodman’s death.
`
`18.
`
`In reliance on that agreement, Walt Goodman Farms, Inc. invested a substantial
`
`amount of money on the irrigation system installed on the farms in Obion County, Tennessee,
`
`only to have Hogan Farms, LLC give notice of the termination of the oral lease pursuant to the
`
`Common Law of the State of Tennessee.
`
`19. Walt Goodman Farms Inc. made improvements to the farms, including, but not
`
`limited to, the irrigation systems which are a valuable improvement to the property of Hogan
`
`Farms, LLC.
`
`20. Walt Goodman Farms, Inc. reasonably believed that it would reap the benefit of
`
`its investment in the irrigation systems for years in the future.
`
`21.
`
`It is manifestly unjust and inequitable to allow Hogan Farms, LLC to benefit from
`
`the payments Walt Goodman Farms, Inc. made for four (4) years on a seven (7) year loan
`
`commitment. The irrigation equipment has an anticipated lifespan of forty-five years,
`
` 4
`
`
`
`potentially longer.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01004-JDB-jay Document 1 Filed 01/10/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID 5
`
`22.
`
`Due to the actions of Hogan Farms, LLC, Walt Goodman Farms, Inc. is entitled to
`
`reimbursement of the four (4) payments totaling $125,419.17 in connection with the irrigation
`
`system and reimbursement of expenses incurred related to the irrigation system in the
`
`approximate amount of $125,000.
`
`
`
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
`
`
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 16-22 above and
`
`incorporates the same herein by reference.
`
`24.
`
`Beginning on or about June 1, 2017, Defendant, Charles Philip Higdon, a
`
`salesman for Nutrien Ag Solutions began advising Hogan Farms, LLC regarding farming
`
`procedures. Walt Goodman Farms, Inc.’s account with Nutrien Ag Solutions is handled by a
`
`salesman from the office in Clinton, Kentucky, not by Mr. Higdon.
`
`25.
`
`Higdon began coming to the farm properties rented by Walton Goodman Farms,
`
`Inc. After Higdon’s visits, David Hogan would call or come to the farms to complain about
`
`information given to him by Higdon. Higdon recommended input and testing that were not
`
`necessary and provided information about planting and harvesting that was not reasonable
`
`considering weather and ground conditions. Higdon insisted on the use of certain seed, not
`
`because it was more suited to the farms but because it was marketed by his employer. The
`
`relationship between the principals, Walt Goodman Farms, Inc. and Hogan Farms, LLC
`
`deteriorated as a result of Higdon’s constant interference and criticism of the farming practices
`
`utilized by Walt Goodman Farms, Inc.
`
`26.
`
`Higdon knew or should have known of the contractual relationship between Walt
`
`Goodman Farms, Inc. and Hogan Farms, LLC.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01004-JDB-jay Document 1 Filed 01/10/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID 6
`
`27.
`
`Higdon acted with intent to damage the business relationship between Walt
`
`Goodman Farms, Inc. and Hogan Farms, LLC for his own financial or other gain.
`
`28.
`
`As a result of Higdon’s tortious interference, Walt Goodman Farms, Inc. lost
`
`future income as well as its investment in improvements to the farms. Further, Walt Goodman
`
`Farms, Inc. was forced to incur unnecessary input costs and other crop related expenses as a
`
`result of Higdon’s interference.
`
`29.
`
`Higdon’s actions were in violation of T.C.A. §47-50-109 which provides that it is
`
`unlawful for any person, by inducement, persuasion, misrepresentation, or other means, to
`
`induce or procure the breach or violation of any lawful contract by a party thereto.
`
`30. As a result of Higdon’s tortuous actions, Walt Goodman Farms is entitled to
`
`recover lost future income, reimbursement for improvements to the farms, input costs and other
`
`crop related expenses in the approximate amount of $6,023,686.40. T.C.A.§47-50-109
`
`provides for treble damages, therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover $18,071,060.40.
`
`FRAUD
`
`
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 23-30 above and
`
`incorporates the same herein by reference.
`
`32.
`
`Higdon insisted on the use of certain seed, not because it was more suited to the
`
`farmland but because it was marketed by his employer.
`
`
`
`33.
`
`Higdon intentionally misrepresented his reasons for the Plaintiff to utilize a
`
`particular corn seed in that the use of the seed was beneficiary to him because it was marketed by
`
`his employer, Nurtrien Ag Solutions.
`
`34.
`
`Higdon knew or should have known that the information he provided to the
`
`Plaintiff concerning the particular seed was false.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01004-JDB-jay Document 1 Filed 01/10/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID 7
`
`35. Walt Goodman Farms, Inc. was forced to incur unnecessary input costs and other
`
`crop related expenses as a result of Higdon’s intentional misrepresentation as to the seed to be
`
`utilized.
`
`36.
`
`Higdon represented to the Plaintiff that the seed recommended by him was
`
`superior to the seed used by the Plaintiff in the past; the seed was also more expensive. In
`
`addition to Higdon misrepresenting the superiority of the recommended seed, he also urged the
`
`Plaintiff to plant approximately 300 acres of farmland earlier than in the previous years.
`
`Plaintiff’s reliance on Higdon’s misrepresentations caused Plaintiff to have to replant
`
`approximately 300 acres of farmland.
`
`37.
`
`Higdon intentionally misrepresented material facts and/or produced false
`
`impressions in order to mislead the Plaintiff or to obtain an undue advantage over the Plaintiff
`
`which constitutes fraud.
`
`38.
`
`Because of Plaintiff’s reliance upon Higdon’s intentional misrepresentations,
`
`Plaintiff incurred actual damages of approximately $250,000.
`
`WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, PLAINTIFF, WALT GOODMAN
`
`FARMS, INC., PRAYS FOR THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:
`
`1. That process issue and be served on the Defendants, and that they be required to answer
`
`within the time allowed under the law.
`
`2. Judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant, Hogan Farms, LLC, for unjust
`
`enrichment and an award of damages of not less than $250,000.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01004-JDB-jay Document 1 Filed 01/10/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID 8
`3.
`Judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant, Charles Philip Higdon, for
`
`intentional interference with a business relationship and award of treble damages in the
`
`amount of $18,071,060.40.
`
`4.
`
`Judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant, Charles Philip Higdon, for fraud
`
`and an award of damages of not less than $250,000.
`
`5. An award of pre-judgment interest, attorney fees, costs and post-judgment interest in favor
`
`of Plaintiff.
`
`6. Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled.
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`s/Marianna Williams
`
`Marianna Williams, BPR # 007199
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`Post Office Box H
`Dyersburg, TN 38025-2008
`(731) 285-507 4
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01004-JDB-jay Document 1 Filed 01/10/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID 9
`Case 1:22-cv-01004-JDB-jay DV@RIBICATHORM 01/10/22 Page9of9 PagelD 9
`
`STATE OF KENTUCKY
`
`COUNTY OF _Hic\wa
`
`PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME,the undersigned Notary Public in and for
`said state and county, duly commissioned and qualified, the above within named WALTER
`GOODMANwith whom I am personally acquainted and who, upon his oath, acknowledged
`himself to be President of Walt Goodman Farms, Inc., and that he as such officer being
`authorized so to do, executed the foregoing and attached Complaint for the purposes therein
`contained by signing the nameof the corporation by himself as such officer.
`
`WITNESS MY HAND ANDNOTARIAL SEAL ofoffice in said State and County
`aforesaid on this the
`“/
` dayof San rs
`, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`My Commission Expires: q LO; 70 a
`
`ai
`
`Pupic
`
`Fy
`
`IR tal aes
`“1,SA RGE, ORS
`/
`
`riya
`
`