Commercial Law
[09/03]
Flying J, Inc. v. Hollen
In plaintiff's facial challenge to Wisconsin's gasoline pricing regulations, district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is reversed and remanded and a permanent injunction against enforcing provisions of the regulations is dissolved as the lack of evidence in the record supporting plaintiff's allegations of collusive conduct by gasoline dealers is fatal to its claim that the motor vehicle fuel provisions of the Unfair Sales Act are preempted by the Sherman Act as it cannot be found on the face of the statute any compelled or authorized conduct that constitutes a violation of federal antitrust law.
[09/03]
Superior Seafoods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
District court's denial of plaintiff's Rule 60(d)(3) motion to vacate an underlying consent judgment involving a series of trademark-related actions stemming from plaintiff's sale of a seafood-products business to defendant is affirmed as, given the facts, and given the equitable requirement that the party seeking relief be free from negligence and fault, the district court clearly did not abuse its discretion in finding equitable relief inappropriate in this case.
[09/03]
Songer v. Dillon Resources, Inc.
In an action brought by truck drivers who operate commercial trucks against defendants for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), summary judgment for defendants and dismissal of plaintiffs' claims with prejudice is affirmed where the Motor Carrier Act exemption applies to bar plaintiffs' claims as: 1) the MCA applies to defendant-staff leasing agency because is a joint employer with the two companies, both of whom are subject to the exemption, and 2) plaintiffs engaged in activities that directly affect operational safety of motor vehicles in transport of property in interstate commerce.
[09/03]
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Leshin
In the Federal Trade Commission's suit against defendants for providing debt consolidation services in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, district court's judgment holding defendants in contempt for violating a stipulated injunction and ordering defendants to disgorge all fees collected in violation of the injunction is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion by holding the defendants in contempt; 2) district court did not err by holding the counseling center in contempt, by holding defendants individually liable, or by holding the contempt defendants jointly and severally liable; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering disgorgement as the sanction for contempt or in calculating the amount to be disgorged; 4) district court issued civil contempt sanctions and did not violate the contempt defendants' right to due process; and 5) the provision of the final order of disgorgement that allows the Commission to convert unpaid balance into a money judgment is not ripe for review.
[09/03]
SmallBizPros, Inc. v. MacDonald
In an appeal arising from the entry of a contempt order against defendant enforcing a settlement agreement with plaintiff, the contempt order is vacated and remanded where, although the parties and the district court likely intended for the district court to retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement, a stipulation effectively dismissed the case when it was filed, and thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.
[09/01]
Hollander v. Copacabana Nightclub
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought against several New York City nightclubs for discriminating against men on “Ladies’ Nights," dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the nightclubs were not state actors and thus were not subject to section 1983.
[08/31]
Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp.
In an action seeking to attach defendant's property in New York as pre-judgment security for a pending arbitration in Hong Kong, dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court did not err in declining to fashion an equitable remedy in circumstances where it was clear that the original attachment order could not be sustained in light of Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009).
[08/30]
Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiff's patent infringement suit related to two types of digital storage devices, recordable discs (CD-Rs) and rewritable compact discs (CD-RWs), claiming that defendant was violating section 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing CD-Rs and CD-RWs that infringed its patents, the International Trade Commission's decision that the doctrine of patent misuse does not bar intervenor-U.S. Philips Corporation from enforcing its patent rights against defendant is affirmed as, even if Phillips and Sony engaged in an agreement not to license the patent at issue for non-Orange-Book purposes, that hypothesized agreement had no bearing on the physical or temporal scope of the patents in suit, nor did it have anti-competitive effects in the relevant market. Therefore, the asserted agreement between Phillips and Sony did not constitute misuse and cannot justify rendering all of Phillips' Orange Book patents unenforceable.
[08/30]
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Chimet, S.P.A.
In Delta Airlines' suit for declaratory judgment seeking to limit its liability for losing approximately 100 kilograms of pure platinum shipped from Italy to Pennsylvania, district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is affirmed as the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant's motion to dismiss as the private interest factors affecting the convenience of the litigants and the public interest factors affecting the convenience of the forum weighed in favor of litigating this dispute in Italy.
[08/26]
Bankston v. Then
[08/25]
DPC Indus., Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
In an action seeking additional insurance coverage against a liability insurer, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) nothing in the policy or an additional endorsement required that an insured property be actually owned or operated by the specific entity seeking coverage related to that facility; and 2) the record contained uncontradicted evidence that defendant provided indemnity coverage to plaintiff.
[08/25]
Advanced Body Care Solutions, LLC v. Thione Int'l., Inc.
In an action arising out of a contract that required a company to make minimum purchases of products in exchange for an exclusive license to market and distribute them, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant's shipment of the defective ampoules breached the entire Licensing Agreement; 2) because the Licensing Agreement did not clearly express that the listed remedies were the exclusive remedies available to defendant, regardless of what the parties' intentions may have been, the Agreement did not effectively limit defendant's remedies; and 3) the jury's verdict, which did not exceed the amount of defendant's expert's calculations, was neither against the great weight of the evidence nor excessive.
[08/25]
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. St. Paul
In a First Amendment action against the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, after the St.
Paul City Council enacted an ordinance prohibiting all billboard extensions, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where a refusal to remand in this situation simply retained the status quo and allowed the City to begin its legislative process anew.
[08/24]
Rexam Beverage Can Co. v. Bolger
In a commercial landlord-tenant dispute involving at a warehouse with a leaky roof, the replacement of which both landlord and tenant denied was their responsibility, judgment in favor of defendant-landlord on his counterclaim on several Illinois state law grounds is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) a conclusion that tenant was contractually bound to replace the roof of the warehouse is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded; 2) district court's award of $405,470 in damages for tenant's failure to replace the roof is affirmed; and 3) district court's Holdover Statute award of $1,156,232.24 is vacated and remanded for a determination of the fair market net rental value of the property and the assessment of a penalty equal to double that value for the duration of the tenant's holdover.
[08/24]
Curtis Lumber Co. v. Louisiana Pac. Corp.
In an action by a retail supplier of building materials regarding defendant's alleged failure to follow through on defendant's rebate promotion that plaintiff promoted to many of its customers, partial summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where the testimony offered by plaintiff fell short of the elevated burden for proving fraud by circumstantial evidence. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff alleged distinct injuries that would not have occurred had defendant paid rebates owed to plaintiff's customers; and 2) there was a question of material fact as to whether defendant's rebate documents misrepresented or omitted a material term of the rebate promotion.