Route Consultants, Inc., et al. v. E3 NV, LLC, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada resolves several motions in a dispute concerning contracts for a digital currency mining system. The court grants Blockleaf LLC's motion for partial summary judgment on its breach-of-contract claim, denies the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment and the plaintiffs' motion to strike, and dismisses the unjust-enrichment claim without prejudice because express contracts govern the transaction. The court also finds that the plaintiffs have standing to pursue the relevant claims.

Holdings

1. The court denied the motion to strike because striking defendants' motion would be futile where the motion raised standing, a jurisdictional issue the court was required to examine sua sponte, and because the court ultimately denied the motion on the merits.
2. The court denied defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on standing. Blockleaf had standing because its CEO signed the contracts on its behalf, and alternatively because Blockleaf was an intended third-party beneficiary. Route and Crypto Quo also had standing because the contracts were entered as part of their joint venture with Blockleaf.
3. Blockleaf was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its breach-of-contract claim because the contracts existed, Blockleaf performed by paying the contract price, defendants failed to fully perform, and defendants presented no competent evidence creating a genuine dispute that their partial performance was excused or that the contracts were modified.
4. Route and Crypto Quo were not entitled to summary judgment on unjust enrichment because an unjust-enrichment claim is unavailable when an express written contract governs the transaction. The court denied their motion as moot and dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should strike defendants' motion for partial summary judgment because it was filed twenty days after the dispositive-motion deadline.
2. Whether plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their contract and related claims because they were not parties in interest to the contracts.
3. Whether Blockleaf was entitled to partial summary judgment on its breach-of-contract claim.
4. Whether Route and Crypto Quo were entitled to partial summary judgment on their unjust-enrichment claim when express written contracts governed the transaction.

Disposition

other