Larry Rice v. Interfood, Inc., et al.

Interfood, Inc. (“Interfood-DE” or “DE”) filed a counterclaim defense claiming that a settlement agreement prevented Rice from suing for any harm suffered on or before December 2009. This suit was filed in 2013 by Rice against Interfood-DE for their breaches in 2010 and 2011 of an exclusive territory agreement between Rice and the Interfood Group of which Interfood-DE is a member. Peripheral complaints brought against DE’s directors below are not being pursued here. Rice’s complaint was dismissed [Doc.#38, App a30] for failure to state a claim because a) the directors were not .parties to the agreement and b) the action complained about allegedly occurred before InterfoodDE existed. The court did not mention Rice’s standing nor the 2010-2011 claims against Interfood-DE. Defendants’ Motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim was granted on the court’s interpretation that the actions complained of occurred before 2009. [Doc.# 102, App. a2] The eighth circuit never ruled on “standing” for claims or counterclaims, never addressed Interfood-DE’s 2010-2011 breaches, never said what element of a claim was missing, and did not allow for an amended complaint. The court ruled instead on uncontroverted issues not brought before it, such as old breaches by other Group companies not parties here, mentioned only as background. I. Whether a federal court can rule on the merits of a complaint or counterclaim without first ruling on standing. II. Whether the court can decide to rule on allegations mentioned in the background section of