Salem Grain Co. v. Grain, S-16-995.

CourtSupreme Court of Nebraska
Citation297 Neb. 682,900 N.W.2d 909
Docket NumberNo. S-16-995.,S-16-995.
Parties SALEM GRAIN COMPANY, INC., appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED GRAIN AND BARGE CO. et al., appellees.
Decision Date08 September 2017

297 Neb. 682
900 N.W.2d 909


No. S-16-995.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Filed September 8, 2017.

David A. Domina and Christian T. Williams, of Domina Law Group, P.C., L.L.O., Omaha, for appellant.

Terry C. Dougherty, Audrey R. Svane, and Kari A.F. Scheer, of Woods & Aitken, L.L.P., Lincoln, for appellee Consolidated Grain and Barge Co.

Robert S. Keith and Alexis M. Wright, of Engles, Ketcham, Olson & Keith, P.C., Omaha, for appellees Gary Jorn, Kevin Malone, and Beth Sickel.

Bonnie M. Boryca and Patrick R. Guinan, of Erickson & Sederstrom, P.C., Omaha, for appellees Becky Cromer, Ray Joy, Bart Keller, and Charles Radatz.

Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Kelch, and Funke, JJ.

Funke, J.


Salem Grain Company, Inc. (Salem), appeals an order from the district court for Richardson County dismissing its

297 Neb. 685

complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court found that all appellees were entitled to immunity from Salem's claims under Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act1 (NCPA) and the Noerr - Pennington doctrine2 and that Salem's claims of conspiracy and aiding and abetting required an underlying tort to be actionable. Accordingly, the court ruled that any amendments to the pleading would be futile. We affirm.


Salem operates commercial grain warehouses and elevators and owns trading businesses throughout southeast Nebraska, including a location in Richardson County, Nebraska. Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. (CGB) also operates commercial grain warehouses. In 2012, CGB expressed an interest in expanding its operations to the Falls City, Nebraska, area, and it now owns and operates a commercial grain

900 N.W.2d 915

warehouse in Richardson County, which is in competition with Salem's Richardson County warehouse.

At the time of the alleged actions, the other appellees were involved with various organizations in Falls City: Becky Cromer was the executive director of the Falls City Economic Development and Growth Enterprise (EDGE), a private organization; Gary Jorn, Ray Joy, and Bart Keller were members of EDGE; Kevin Malone was a member of EDGE, the Falls City Community Redevelopment Authority (CRA), the Citizen Advisory Review Committee (CARB), and the Falls City Planning and Zoning Board; Charles Radatz was a member of EDGE and the CRA; and Beth Sickel was a member of

297 Neb. 686

EDGE, the CRA, and the CARB. Each of these appellees were sued in their individual capacities.

The remaining defendants, "John Doe I-IV and Jane Doe I-IV," were members of EDGE, the CRA, or the CARB that may have participated in the alleged wrongful acts against Salem.

Salem filed a complaint alleging that each of the individual appellees engaged in a pattern of behavior—through a series of contracts, combinations, and conspiracies—with the intent to deprive it of information, an opportunity to be heard, and due process of law, which caused Salem financial damages. More specifically, it alleged that its damages were a result of the unfair increased competition that CGB brought to the region through the special privileges it received from Falls City and that the individual appellees aided and abetted in concealing from Salem and the community those benefits.

Salem asserts that the individual appellees' pattern of behavior included preventing legal notice of the following actions from being provided to Salem: the annexation of land into Falls City; the rezoning of said land for commercial use; the declaration of said land as blighted, which made it eligible for tax increment financing; the approval of tax increment financing and the issuance of at least one bond to assist CGB; and the procurement of state and federal grants to assist CGB. In doing so, Salem contended that the appellees violated Nebraska's Open Meetings Act3 (NOMA) and the NCPA.

As a result of CGB's entry into the market at the end of 2012, Salem alleged an annual loss net profit of 10 to 20 cents per bushel for 2 million bushels per year of grain that it would have or did handle in 2013 through 2015. During that same period, Salem alleged an annual minimum loss of $150,000 in storage revenue.

297 Neb. 687

CGB; Cromer, Joy, Keller, and Radatz; and Jorn, Malone, and Sickel separately moved to dismiss Salem's complaint, arguing that it had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6). CGB, Jorn, Malone, and Sickel also asserted that the appellees were entitled to immunity under the Noerr - Pennington doctrine.

The court ruled that Salem could not state any claim against the appellees pursuant to the NCPA, because the appellees were entitled to immunity, under the Noerr - Pennington doctrine, and rejected Salem's claim that an exception to the doctrine applied, because the appellees acted unlawfully by violating the NOMA. The court also ruled that the conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims required an underlying tort to be viable. Therefore, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, essentially finding any amendment would be futile. Salem appealed.

900 N.W.2d 916


Salem assigns, restated and reordered, that the court erred (1) in finding the appellees immune from suit, under the Noerr - Pennington doctrine or otherwise; (2) in finding that conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims are not independent claims upon which relief can be granted but, instead, require the allegation of an independent tort; (3) by sustaining appellees' § 6-1112(b)(6) motions to dismiss; (4) by denying leave to amend; and (5) by not sustaining Salem's jury demand.


A district court's grant of a motion to dismiss on the pleadings is reviewed de novo, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.4

297 Neb. 688

Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, for which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court below.5


Salem argues, summarized, that it and other grain warehouses in and around southeast Nebraska were injured by CGB's entry into the market in Richardson County, because CGB received special economic privileges. It claims that the special privileges provided to CGB were the result of the appellees' conspiracy to prevent the public, and Salem specifically, from having knowledge of the economic development activities that the city council of Falls City was providing. It further claims that the appellees participated in violations of the NOMA in order to obtain those special privileges.

As a result, it asserts that the conspiracy to provide CGB an unfair advantage in the marketplace by violating the NOMA was a violation of the NCPA under §§ 59-1602 and 59-1603, which damaged Salem and created a cause of action under § 59-1609. Further, it contends that the appellees' conspiracy to engage in wrongful conduct—by violating the NOMA, violating the NCPA, and withholding information—is sufficient to sustain claims of conspiracy and aiding and abetting. CGB argues that Salem's single factual allegation—that it expressed an interest in opening a grain warehouse in the Falls City area—cannot support any claims against it. Further, the appellees contend that, acting in their individual capacities, their actions were nothing more than petitioning the government to offer CGB incentives to open a location in Falls City to advance economic development in the community.

297 Neb. 689


(a) Parties' Contentions

Salem argues that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is a narrow defense that applies only to antitrust claims and not to its claims under the NCPA. It argues that §§ 59-1602 and 59-1603 of the NCPA were modeled after the Federal Trade Commission Act6 (FTCA), not the Sherman Act7 ; that the FTCA focuses on consumer rather than market protection; and that the FTCA is, therefore, broader than merely antitrust claims.

900 N.W.2d 917

Further, it contends that if we do find that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine applies to its claims, we should adopt a "conspiracy" exception to the doctrine in which politicians or political entities are involved as conspirators with private actors. While the U.S. Supreme Court has specifically rejected such an exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, Salem contends that the Supreme Court limited its holding to the Sherman Act. Accordingly, assuming that the doctrine applies outside the context of antitrust claims, Salem contends that the doctrine remains...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • In re Dicamba Herbicides Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • February 6, 2019
    ...Ill.Dec. 636, 645 N.E.2d 888 (1994) ; Orr v. Morgan , 230 So.3d 368, 375 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) ; Salem Grain Co., Inc. v. Consol. Grain & Barge Co. , 297 Neb. 682, 900 N.W.2d 909, 923–24 (2017) ; Rock Ivy Holding, LLC v. RC Properties, LLC , 464 S.W.3d 623, 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). Three ......
  • Schaeffer v. Frakes
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • August 21, 2020 the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Salem Grain Co. v. Consolidated Grain & Barge Co. , 297 Neb. 682, 900 N.W.2d 909 (2017). To prevail against a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege sufficient fa......
  • Smith v. Iverson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • September 16, 2019
    ...agreement to commit an unlawful or oppressive act that constitutes a tort against the plaintiff." Salem Grain Co., Inc. v. Consol. Grain & Barge Co., 900 N.W.2d 909, 923-24 (Neb. 2017) (footnotes omitted). "[A] 'conspiracy' is not a separate and independent tort in itself, but, rather, is d......
  • Walters v. Sporer
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • December 29, 2017
    ...; Evans, supra note 57.65 deNourie & Yost Homes v. Frost , 295 Neb. 912, 893 N.W.2d 669 (2017).66 Salem Grain Co. v. Consolidated Grain & Barge Co. , 297 Neb. 682, 900 N.W.2d 909 (2017). ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The basis of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine: statutory construction versus the first amendment
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library The Noerr-Pennington Doctrine. Third Edition
    • December 9, 2022
    ...First Amendment would give the doctrine a more clear anchor and would result in greater doctrinal predictability. 84 Courts now must 77. 900 N.W. 2d 909 (Neb. 2017). 78. Id. at 918-19. 79. Id . at 922. 80. Id . 81. See ROBERT H. BORK, THE ANTITRUST PARADOX xiv (Free Press 1993) (1978). 82. ......

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