Leonetti's Frozen Foods, Inc. v. Rew Mktg., Inc., 887 F.3d 438

Background

Leonetti’s developed a Café Stromboli reformulated to meet Sam’s Club’s impinger-oven heating requirements; Crew, a broker, handled testing/communications.
Sam’s Club required passing both a temperature test and a hold test before purchase; Leonetti’s passed both on January 14, 2015.
Minutes after a Crew executive’s testing-update email, Crew President Campigli accidentally “reply-all”ed a message joking that some test slides could be used in a Costco presentation (the “Costco email”).
Sam’s Club buyer Hawthorne forwarded the email to superiors, called the email a “grievous error,” ceased responding to Crew for ~3 weeks, and ultimately emailed that the project was terminated for product-performance concerns.
Leonetti’s sued Crew for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and trade libel; the district court granted summary judgment for Crew on all counts and dismissed the remaining contract count by stipulation.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding the district court improperly weighed evidence and failed to view facts in the light most favorable to Leonetti’s, creating genuine factual disputes on causation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was proper given disputed causation between the Costco email and Sam’s Club’s decision to terminate	The Costco email caused Sam’s Club to stop communications and terminate the project; circumstantial evidence (timing, silence, buyer statements) supports causation	Sam’s Club terminated for product quality/performance issues; no documentary or testimonial evidence tied the decision to the Costco email	Reversed—summary judgment improper because material factual disputes on causation exist and the district court improperly weighed evidence
Whether the district court correctly resolved credibility at summary judgment	Leonetti’s argued the court should not credit Hawthorne’s self-serving explanations where contradictory evidence exists	Crew relied on Hawthorne’s testimony and Sam’s Club records to show credibility and absence of causation	Reversed—the court impermissibly made credibility determinations and failed to credit conflicting evidence in Leonetti’s favor
Whether circumstantial evidence can establish proximate cause	Leonetti’s: circumstantial facts (passage of tests, immediate reply-all, communication blackout, buyer labeling the email a serious ethical lapse) suffice for a jury	Crew: only temporal proximity exists; allowing a jury would be pure speculation	Held that circumstantial evidence can support proximate cause and here creates a genuine dispute for trial
Whether the district court applied correct summary-judgment standard	Leonetti’s: court ignored the requirement to view facts in the light most favorable to the non‑moving party and to avoid weighing evidence	Crew: district court correctly found no evidence tying the email to decision and applied law properly	Reversed—the district court erred by weighing evidence and resolving factual disputes at summary judgment

Key Cases Cited

Banks v. Slay, 875 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
Odom v. Kaizer, 864 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2017) (summary judgment review)
Arena Holdings Charitable, LLC v. Harman Prof’l, Inc., 785 F.3d 292 (8th Cir. 2015) (summary-judgment procedural standards)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (summary judgment standards and viewing facts for nonmovant)
Quick v. Donaldson Co., 90 F.3d 1372 (8th Cir. 1996) (courts must not weigh evidence or assess credibility at summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment burden and evaluation of evidence)
Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014) (courts must credit evidence favorable to nonmovant and not make credibility determinations at summary judgment)
New Maumelle Harbor v. Rochelle, 991 S.W.2d 552 (Ark. 1999) (circumstantial evidence may establish proximate cause)