Herr v. Cornhusker Farms

Decision Date27 March 2017
Docket NumberCase No. 1-15-cv-174
PartiesGlenn Herr, Plaintiff, v. Cornhusker Farms; James Husby, individually; and Zylstra Investigations, LLC, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of North Dakota

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ZYLSTRA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT RE PUNITIVE DAMAGES

On December 10, 2015, plaintiff Glenn Herr initiated the above action against defendant Cornhusker Farms ("Cornhusker"), a general partnership between James Husby and Dennis Jones, both of whom reside in the Aberdeen, South Dakota area. (Doc. Nos. 30, pp. 6-7; 30-3, pp. 4-6). Also named as defendants are James Husby in his individual capacity and Zylstra Investigations, LLC. The latter is a one-person private investigation firm owned and operated by Laura Zylstra Kaiser, a former South Dakota state criminal investigator and a graduate of the University of South Dakota School of Law. (Doc. No. 41-1, pp. 4-6). For purposes of the discussion that follows, "Zylstra" will refer either to Kaiser or her investigation firm as the context requires, keeping in mind that Herr has sued only the latter.

In his complaint, Herr has asserted a number of claims arising out of: (1) Cornhusker having accused him of stealing a load of its soybeans in 2013 (an accusation Herr claims lacked any reasonable basis in fact); (2) Cornhusker, with the assistance of Zylstra, attempting to coerce payment for the soybeans with threats of bringing criminal charges; and (3), when that failed, Cornhusker, again with the assistance of Zylstra, causing a felony charge of theft to be brought against him that ultimately was dismissed for lack of probable cause following a preliminary hearing. (Doc. No. 1).

Before the court now is Zylstra's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims brought against it for: (1) negligence; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) abuse of process; and (4) malicious prosecution. In considering this motion, the court's task is to determine whether there is a legal basis for the claims and enough evidence to allow them to go forward. In making these evaluations, the court must at this stage consider the facts in a light most favorable for Herr, including drawing all appropriate inferences in his favor. E.g., Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

Also before the court is Herr's motion to amend his complaint to request punitive damages. As discussed later, this motion is governed by N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-11(1) and similarly requires an evaluation of the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to Herr.

I. DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE FAVORABLE FOR HERR
A. The Cornhusker and Herr soybean operations

Husby and Jones started their farming partnership by renting land in Bowdle South. In addition to farming this land, Cornhusker also farmed additional acreage in South Dakota and North Dakota, including the acreage at issue in this case that Cornhusker rented from Lydia Herr in McIntosh County, North Dakota. This acreage is located approximately 13 miles southwest of Wishek, which is the closet town. Ashley, the county seat for McIntosh County, is located approximately 19 miles to the southeast. Cornhusker's "Wishek acreage" is adjacent to some of the land that Herr farms in the area with the assistance of his son. (Doc. Nos. 30 pp. 8-9; 30-3, p. 6; 31, p. 67; 33, p.28; 41-3, p. 4).

When Husby and Jones first rented the Wishek acreage in 2012, they sought the assistance of the Herrs to help farm it given its distance from their operation near Bowdle, some 60 miles to the south, and from Aberdeen where the two partners resided, which is somewhat further away. As is pertinent here, the Herrs did the spraying and much of the harvesting of Cornhusker's Wishek acreage for the 2012 to 2014 farming seasons. Also pertinent here is that Cornhusker and Herr both grew soybeans as part of their respective farming operations and, during 2013, the Herrs harvested both acreages. (Doc. Nos. 30, pp. 31 &39; 30-3, pp. 6-9; 41-2, pp. 5-8).

There is evidence that, when Herr harvested Cornhusker's soybeans, the beans would be loaded into trucks and transported the same day or the next to one or more elevators in the vicinity, some of which Cornhusker had pre-existing contracts with for sale of soybeans. The same was not necessarily true for Herr's soybeans since he had on-farm storage. (Doc. Nos. 30, p. 12; 41-3, p. 11). Hence, any of beans that Herr might deliver to the elevator may have come either from the fields as the beans were being harvested or may have come from onsite storage.

B. The November 2014 call by Husby and Jones accusing Herr of converting a load of soybeans harvested in 2013

After the 2014 harvest, Husby and Jones had a phone conversation with Herr that November to discuss the spraying bill that the Herrs had presented to Cornhusker for spraying in 2014 as well the amount owed by Cornhusker for use of certain of their equipment. During this conversation, Husby and Jones claimed that Herr had misappropriated a load of Cornhusker's soybeans the year prior during the 2013 harvest. More specifically, they claimed that a load of soybeans that Herr had delivered on October 30, 2013, to the North Central Farmers Elevator in Hague, North Dakota (the "Hague elevator") and deposited in his name came from Cornhusker's soybean acreage and not his own. (Doc. Nos. 30, pp. 14-15; 32, pp. 23-24, 32-33; 30-3, pp. 8-9; 43; 41-2, p. 7; 43, Herr call001).

There is evidence that, for Herr, this accusation of theft in November 2014 of a load of 2013 soybeans - more than a year after the delivery of the load in question and after the intervening 2014 harvest - came out of the blue. Relevant later is that there is some evidence that, during this phone conversation, Herr may have stated, without the benefit of looking at records and having time to reflect on the matter, that he completed the harvest of his soybeans on October 27, 2013, before starting on the same date on the Cornhusker acreage. (Doc. Nos. 30, p. 19; Doc. No. 43, Herr call 001). As discussed later, Herr later told Cornhusker's investigator prior to any criminal charge being brought that he had concluded after a review of his records that, while he had finished the bulk of his soybean harvest prior to starting on Cornhusker's acreage on October 27, there was one field that he did not finish until the morning of October 30.

What may be of particular concern to a jury in this case are two points about the timing of the initial November 2014 phone call. One is the fact that it did not come until after the Herrs had presented Cornhusker with their bill for 2014 spraying, which Cornhusker disputed and to date has not paid. The amount of this bill was approximately $15,000, slightly more than the value of $14,000 that Cornhusker placed on the load of soybeans that it accused Herr of stealing. Second, despite professing to have believed that Herr had stole a load of its soybeans, Cornhusker not only did not report the suspected theft to authorities at that time, it continued to employ the Herrs to do their 2014 spraying and assist with the harvest of the 2014 crop. (Doc. Nos. 30, pp. 47; 32, pp. 23-24, 42-43; 30-3, pp.8-9; 43, Herr call 001).

C. Cornhusker's retention of Zylstra and the questionable "evidence" provided by Husby and Jones

When Herr would not acknowledge that the October 30, 2013 load of beans belonged to Cornhusker, Husby and Jones retained Zylstra. A jury could conclude from the evidence that follows that Zylstra was engaged not to conduct an independent investigation as to whether Herr actually stole the soybeans, but rather to put together in a package the "evidence" that Husby and Jones believed could be used to pressure Herr with a claim of theft.

Husby and Jones first met with Zylstra at a Perkins restaurant in Aberdeen, South Dakota on December 1, 2014. During this meeting, Husby and Jones turned over some (but not all) of the certificates evidencing the deliveries of soybeans that had been harvested from Cornhusker's acreage by the Herrs in late October and the beginning of November 2013. The certificates that Husby and Jones turned over were for deliveries to the Northern Plains Cooperative Elevator at Venturia, North Dakota (the "Venturia elevator"). Husby and Jones also outlined for Zylstra why these grain certificates along with other information that they claimed was true demonstrated that the load of beans that Herr delivered to the Hague elevator on October 30, 2013, came from Cornhusker's fields. The "evidence" that appears to have been provided by Husby and Jones to Zylstra was the following:

• Husby's assertion that Herr had completed the harvest of his own soybeans on October 27, 2013, some three days prior to the October 30 load being delivered to the Hague elevator.
• Husby's claim that a widespread precipitation event blanketed the area with an inch or more of rain that began on the evening of October 28, 2013, and continued for most of the next day. According to Husby, this precipitation event caused themoisture levels of the first load of soybeans harvested after the 28th and 29th to have a higher moisture content than the soybeans harvested on October 27-28 from Cornhusker's fields and, since the load delivered by Herr to the Hague elevator on October 30 had the same moisture content as the loads that were delivered from Cornhusker's fields on October 28, that load must have come from its fields.1
• Husby's claim that a semi-truck full of soybeans that Cornhusker's hired hand, Miles Grein, claimed to have remembered seeing parked at the Herr farmstead at about noon on October 28, 2013, was likely the load of beans that Herr delivered to the Hague Elevator two days later.2
• Husby's suspicion that Herr may have committed other acts of theft of its harvested crop including a load of 2012 corn and maybe more soybeans harvested in early November 2013 after the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT