United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
RUSSELL ENERGY, INC., also known as Russell Energy Partners, Inc. PLAINTIFF
RONALD RUBRECHT; DREW GARLAND; TURBINE DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES, INC.; GARLAND BROTHERS, INC.; GEORGIA RENEWABLE POWER, LLC; UNKNOWN PURCHASER; UNKNOWN JOHN AND JANE DOES A, B, C, AND OTHER UNKNOWN CORPORATE ENTITIES X, Y, Z DEFENDANTS
ORDER GRANTING GEORGIA RENEWABLE POWER, LLC'S
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
GUIROLA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THE COURT is the  Motion to Dismiss for Failure
to State a Claim filed by the defendant, Georgia Renewable
Power, LLC. The plaintiff, Russell Energy, Inc., also known
as Russell Energy Partners, Inc., filed a response in
opposition to the Motion, but Georgia Renewable did not file
a reply. After reviewing the submissions of the parties, the
record in this matter, and the applicable law, the Court
finds that Georgia Renewable's Motion to Dismiss
Russell's Complaint is granted, and Georgia
Renewable's Motion for More Definite Statement is moot.
17, 2016, Russell entered into a Non-Disclosure,
Non-Circumvention, and Non-Competition Agreement with
Tidmore-Newman Energy Services, Inc., Georgia Renewable, and
Garland Brothers. Russell provides the following description
of the alleged agreement in its Complaint:
In addition to general protections against circumvention,
breach of confidentiality, and competition, this agreement
protected any information that Plaintiff provided to the
Defendants in any business discussions. Additionally, the
agreement restricted the parties from using any advantages
derived from the information provided in business discussions
for their own business affairs.
(Compl. 4, ECF No. 1-1.) Russell also claims that it entered
into a Non-Disclosure, Non-Circumvention, and Non-Competition
Agreement with Ronald Rubrecht and Turbine Diagnostic
Services on July 11, 2016, after Rubrecht asked Russell
“to find a generator for one of Rubrecht's clients
to buy.” (Id.) Russell then contacted Drew
Garland of Garland Brothers, who told him about a generator
owned by Georgia Renewable. Garland gave Russell a quote in
the amount of $1.5 million for the generator, with a seven
percent commission payable to Russell.
then quoted a price of $2.5 million for the generator to
Rubrecht with a ten percent commission payable to Russell for
its part in the deal. Russell alleges, “After further
negotiations, Garland unexpectedly increased the price of the
generator to $2 million and withdrew the offer of a 7%
commission.” (Id. at 5.)
further claims that Garland used confidential information it
obtained from Russell to complete the sale of the generator
with Rubrecht without Russell's participation.
Rubrecht's attorney later sent Russell an alleged
commission in the amount of $95, 635.
filed this lawsuit against Rubrecht, Garland, Turbine
Diagnostic Services, Garland Brothers, Georgia Renewable, and
several John Doe and Unknown defendants, seeking
compensatory, liquidated, and punitive damages as well as
attorney's fees and expenses and prejudgment interest.
Russell attempts to assert the following claims: breach of
confidentiality, breach of non-circumvention, breach of
non-competition, breach of non-disclosure, breach of implied
warranty of good faith and fair dealing, civil conspiracy to
defraud, and unfair and deceptive acts.
survive a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),
“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court
must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view those
facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
King-White v. Humble Indep. Sch. Dist., 803 F.3d
754, 758 (5th Cir. 2015). “The court's task is to
determine whether the plaintiff has stated a legally
cognizable claim that is plausible, not to evaluate the
plaintiff's likelihood of success.” Lone Star
Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383,
387 (5th Cir. 2010). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to
provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires
more than mere labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
only facts in Russell's Complaint that concern Georgia
Renewable are: (1) Russell entered into a Non-Disclosure,
Non-Circumvention, and NonCompetition Agreement with Georgia
Renewable and other companies; (2) Drew Garland of Garland
Brothers identified a generator owned by Georgia Renewable
when Russell requested information concerning a generator
that was for sale; (3) Garland was acting on behalf of
Garland Brothers and Georgia Renewable as a selling agent
when he allegedly breached the confidentiality provision in
the agreement; and (4) Georgia Renewable and other defendants
breached the NonDisclosure, Non-Circumvention, and
Non-Competition Agreement. Russell's statements that
Garland acted as Georgia Renewable's agent and that
Georgia Renewable breached the Agreement are unsupported
legal conclusions. Therefore, Russell has not provided
sufficient facts to support any of its claims against Georgia
Renewable. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (“While
legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint,
they must be supported by factual allegations.”)
Georgia Renewable's Motion to Dismiss is granted.
However, Russell is granted leave to amend its complaint to
attempt to state claims against Georgia Renewable within
thirty days of the date of this Order.
IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the 
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by the
defendant, Georgia Renewable Power, LLC, is
GRANTED. The plaintiff, Russell Energy, Inc.
a/k/a Russell Energy Partners, Inc., is granted thirty days
from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint.
IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that if Russell
Energy, Inc. a/k/a Russell Energy Partners, Inc., fails to
file an amended complaint against Georgia Renewable Power,
LLC, within thirty days of the date of this Order,