Case Summaries

[05/13] Roemmich v. Eagle Eye Dev., LLC
In an action brought by shareholder-plaintiff alleging various violations of his rights as a minority shareholder, partial summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty to a minority shareholder was time barred by North Dakota's statute of limitations; 2) the continuing wrong doctrine did not toll the limitations period; 3) there was no error in findings of fact concerning freeze-out of a minority shareholder, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair deprivation of reasonable expectations; and 4) in applying North Dakota state law, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees and expenses to defendant.

[05/13] Estate of Pew v. Cardarelli
In an appeal primarily addressing whether a claim fell within the exception to the Class Action Fairness Act's ("CAFA") grant of original and appellate jurisdiction for class actions which solely involve claims concerning certain rights and duties related to any security, the circuit court: 1) rules that the suit at hand does not fall within such exception to CAFA jurisdiction, and thus it has authority to accept an appeal from a remand order; 2) grants defendant's petition for leave to appeal; and 3) reverses the district court's remand order on the merits.

[05/12] Kornman & Assocs. Inc. v. US
In a proceeding under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) in which plaintiffs were alleged to have attempted to create an artificial tax loss through the short sale of Treasury Notes and the transfer of partnership interests, summary judgment for the government and dismissal with prejudice of a petition for readjustment of partnership items is affirmed where the obligation to close a short sale is a liability for purposes of I.R.C. section 752.

[05/09] Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures and Television
In a breach of contract action involving Disney's alleged failure to fully compensate for its exploitation of the cartoon characters depicted in plaintiff's novel "Who Censored Roger Rabbit?", judgment for plaintiff including the amount of damages awarded is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the trial court erroneously allowed the jury to interpret the term "purchaser" in a 1983 agreement when the meaning of that term was not dependent on the credibility of conflicting extrinsic evidence, and thus there was no factual issue for the jury to resolve; and 2) because plaintiff's royalty payments under the agreement did not include any entitlement to the gross receipt of Disney's subsidiaries, the trial court's award of that amount was erroneous.

[05/08] In re: Straightline Invs., Inc.
A judgment under 11 U.S.C. section 549(a) avoiding the transfer to appellant of corporate bankruptcy debtor's accounts receivable which had a face value of approximately $200,600 is affirmed over appellant's claims that: 1) the transfer of accounts receivable was not an avoidable transfer because there was no depletion or diminution of debtor's estate; 2) the transfer was an outright sale of receivables in the ordinary course of business, and the defenses of recoupment and earmarking should apply to bar recovery by the trustee; and 3) even if it was avoidable, the wrong measure of recovery was awarded.

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

More...

[05/13] N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica
In an action brought by a developer against the city of Pacifica involving a proposed condominium project, dismissal of developer's substantive due process claim is affirmed, but an order holding city liable for an equal protection violation is reversed and the resultant damages awards vacated where: 1) the developer was not entitled to judgment on an equal protection claim, as the city did not intentionally treat it differently from any other developer; and 2) a due process claim should not be resurrected because developer did not allege any irrational delay in the city's approval of its permits.

[05/13] United Stars Indus., Inc. v. Plastech Engineered Prods., Inc.
In an action over monies owed, judgment in favor of plaintiff and sanctions imposed against defendant's attorneys are affirmed where: 1) the compromise that was reached after the initial dispute over pricing and monies owed included defendant's overcharge claims; 2) the contract allowed plaintiff to pass on an increase in costs due to the use of additional materials other than nickel through a surcharge; 3) defendant was liable to pay for the entire cost of the materials bought even though some of it was lost during the production process; and 4) the district judge did not abuse her discretion by sanctioning defendant's lawyers for making unsupported allegations during litigation.

[05/08] Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)

[05/07] Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.

[05/07] B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc.
In an antitrust case involving the legality of an agreement which established an exclusive network of preferred providers to supply types of medical equipment to enrollees in certain health-benefits plans offered to Chrysler, Ford, and state employees and retirees, a judgment and sanctions against plaintiff whose application to the network was rejected are affirmed, and appellate sanctions imposed, where: 1) plaintiff's antitrust claims lacked any conceivable merit; 2) a challenge to a discovery order failed; and 3) sanctions imposed below were not an abuse of discretion, and further, appellate sanctions were warranted.

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

More...