Sunrise Marine, LLC v. Aqua Traction Marine, LLC

Sunrise Marine · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin · January 6, 2026 · No. 25-CV-722

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Aqua Traction Marine, LLC’s motion to dismiss Sunrise Marine, LLC’s amended complaint. The court held that Sunrise Marine plausibly alleged that Aqua Traction violated the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law by failing to protect Sunrise Marine’s exclusive territory, and that the claim was not conclusively barred by the statute of limitations. The court also allowed Sunrise Marine’s breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims to proceed.

Holdings

  1. The statute of limitations did not require dismissal because the complaint did not establish that the WFDL claim necessarily accrued more than one year before the action was filed.
  2. A grantor's abandonment of its obligation to protect a dealer's exclusive territory from encroachment may plausibly violate Wis. Stat. § 135.03 even if the alleged violation consists of inaction rather than an affirmative act.
  3. The complaint plausibly alleged that Aqua Traction's conduct and inaction substantially changed the competitive circumstances of Sunrise Marine's dealership agreement without good cause.
  4. The breach-of-contract claim could proceed because Sunrise plausibly alleged that Aqua Traction failed to take reasonable and available steps to enforce its contractual promise to protect Sunrise's territory.
  5. Sunrise plausibly alleged a separate claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing based on Aqua Traction's alleged refusal to verify whether dealers used products within their assigned territories.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint plainly established that Sunrise Marine's Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
  2. Whether alleged inaction or failure to protect a dealer's territory can plausibly constitute a substantial change in competitive circumstances under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law.
  3. Whether Sunrise Marine plausibly alleged that Aqua Traction breached the dealership agreement's territorial-protection obligations.
  4. Whether Sunrise Marine plausibly alleged a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing based on Aqua Traction's failure to verify or police territorial compliance.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (17)

  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • BBL, Inc. v. City of Angola, 809 F.3d 317, 325 (7th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Freeman v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chicago, 927 F.3d 961, 965 (7th Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 510-14 (2002)(followed)
  • Chi. Bldg. Design, P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc., 770 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2014)(followed)
  • Logan v. Wilkins, 644 F.3d 577, 582 (7th Cir. 2011)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 17.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…