Case Summaries

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.

More...

Property Law & Real Estate

[09/03] Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Anderson Senior Living Prop., LLC.
In an appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) grant of debtors' motion to dismiss as moot pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 363(m), plaintiffs' appeal of the bankruptcy court's authorization of the sale of debtors' interests in seven co-owned properties as well as the undivided interests of the tenants in common (TIC), is affirmed as the BAP properly determined that section 363(m) moots the appeal because, even though the bankruptcy court approved the sale of the TIC property interests pursuant to section 363(h), the debtors ultimately sold the properties pursuant to section 363(b) and that sale was never stayed.

[09/03] Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.
In property owners' class action suit against the facility operators of a former nuclear weapons plant under the Price-Anderson Act (PAA), alleging trespass claims arising from the release of plutonium particles onto their properties, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in awarding over $926 million is reversed and remanded where: 1) district court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331; 2) because the jury was not properly instructed on an essential element of plaintiffs' PAA claims, the verdict must be set aside and the case remanded; 3) the issue of whether federal nuclear safety standards preempt state tort standards of care under the PAA is remanded; 4) the Colorado Supreme Court would not permit recovery premised on a finding that an interference, in the form of anxiety or fear of health risks, is "substantial" and "unreasonable" unless that anxiety is supported by some scientific evidence, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise; 5) defendants failed to establish that any of the state of federal standards referenced in their proposed jury instructions overcome the general rule that the jury must determine whether a given interference is "unreasonable" by weighing the harm against the utility of the interference; 6) on remand, plaintiffs are required to prove the plutonium contamination caused "physical damage to the property" in order to prevail on their trespass claims; and 7) district court did not err in instructing the jury that it could award punitive damages in the case.

[09/02] Bakalar v. Vavra
In an action seeking a declaration that plaintiff was the owner of a drawing by Egon Schiele, judgment for plaintiff is vacated where: 1) although it is unclear whether a cause of action comparable to the counterclaims of defendants could be successfully brought in Austria, allowing the claims to go forward under New York law was consistent with the principles underlying the decision of the Supreme Court of Austria; and 2) the district judge, by applying Swiss Law, erred in placing the burden of proof on defendants to show that the Nazis looted the drawing.

[09/02] Vanderkous v. Conley
In a trustee's suit seeking to quiet title to certain real property, trial court's finding that the trustee's attempt to dismiss the action was void ab initio, because it was made after trial court had commenced and after it had entered judgment quieting title in trustee and directing him to pay defendant the full market value of the property as compensation for defendant's equitable interest, is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly set aside trustee's purported dismissal of the action; 2) the court properly ordered the trustee to compensate defendant for her equitable interest in the property when it quieted his title to the garage area; and 3) substantial evidence supports the property's valuation as a conforming legal lot.

More...