ALBERTA LTD., Canadian Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DUKE/LOUIS DREYFUS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee,, (2nd Cir. 2004)

Docket Number: 03-7889

Linked as:

Text

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of July, two thousand and four.

PRESENT:

HON. GUIDO CALABRESI, HON. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges, HON. RICHARD M. BERMAN, District Judge.*

DIRECT ENERGY MARKETING LIMITED, Canadian Corp., JOHN LAGADIN, individually and 646885

ALBERTA LTD., Canadian Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 03-7889

DUKE/LOUIS DREYFUS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee,

For Plaintiffs-Appellants: ROBERT GOODIN, Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day, LLP (Francine T.

Radford, on the brief), San Francisco, CA Andrew B. Nevas, Westport, CT For Defendant-Appellee: BETH A. LEVENE, Williams & Connolly, LLP (John J. Buckley, Jr., Victoria Radd Rollins, on the brief), Washington, DC Zeldes, Needle & Cooper (Jacob D. Zeldes, on the brief), Bridgeport, CT Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Eginton, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiffs Direct Energy Marketing Limited ("DEML"), a Canadian corporation, and its former shareholders, John Lagadin and 646885 Alberta Ltd., brought this suit under diversity jurisdiction in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Eginton, J.)

against appellee Duke/Louis Dreyfus LLC ("D/LD") and other affiliated entities. See Direct Engery Mktg. Ltd. v. Duke/Louis Dreyfus, LLC, 50 Fed. Appx. 469, 470 (2d Cir. 2002)

(unpublished summary order). Plaintiffs alleged various claims arising from the proposed, but unconsummated acquisition of DEML by D/LD, including, inter alia, promissory estoppel.

The parties agree that if Canadian law applies, plaintiffs' promissory estoppel claim must be dismissed. The District Court found that under Connecticut choice of law principles, Canadian law should be applied and gave judgment for D/LD. We agree with the District Court that, in the circumstances of this case, the Connecticut courts would apply Canadian law. See Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 703 A.2d 1132, 1138 (Conn.

1997).

Accordingly, having considered all of the plaintiffs' arguments and having found them to be without merit, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

For the Court, ROSEANN B. MACKECHNIE, Clerk of the Court by:

[*]-. The Honorable Richard M. Berman, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.