This case centered on a 2003 License Agreement between MDS (Canada), Inc. (Nordion) and Rad Source Technologies, Inc., under which Rad Source licensed patent rights for blood irradiation devices such as the RS 3000, with disputes arising over whether the new RS 3400 embodied those patents, the effect of a later sublicense and asset purchase involving Best entities, and obligations under the grant of license, non-compete, and right-of-first-negotiation provisions. After a bench trial in phases covering liability and technical/patent issues, the court concluded that neither party proved entitlement to damages, making a damages phase unnecessary, and that the non-compete provision had expired by its terms in 2010. The court issued detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law interpreting the agreement's key articles after the parties reached an impasse in mediation following a preliminary order.
This case involved a Florida construction company suing Illinois-based engineers for professional malpractice and negligent misrepresentation after the engineers' reports led the City of North Miami Beach to require replacement of a water slide in a pool renovation project. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the economic loss rule barred the tort claims and that they owed no duty to the plaintiff since there was no contractual privity. The court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, holding that under Florida law the economic loss rule prevents recovery in tort for purely economic damages absent a special relationship or privity, and that no such duty existed here based on the facts alleged.
This case involves a local business, Moheb, Inc. d/b/a Mr. Moe’s, challenging the City of Miami’s 2008 ordinance that reduced the permitted hours for alcohol sales by supper clubs in a specific commercial zone from 5:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m., following an earlier lawsuit that was dismissed with prejudice and covenants in which the business had agreed to follow city code provisions on alcohol hours. After the business added a federal equal protection claim to its state-court complaint, the city removed the case to federal court, prompting the court to consider abstention and other defenses. The district court decided to remand the entire action to state court, including the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings. The core reasoning was that Pullman abstention applies because unsettled questions of state and local law—such as res judicata from the prior suit, the effect of the restrictions declarations, and interpretation of the zoning ordinance—could moot or alter the posture of the single federal constitutional claim, avoiding unnecessary federal constitutional adjudication.
This case involved a marine insurance dispute where Great Lakes Reinsurance sought a declaratory judgment that its policy on a vessel owned by defendants Morales and Barreiro was void due to material misrepresentations about ownership and operating experience, and that no coverage applied to an alleged theft occurring while the vessel was on a trailer at a residence, an excluded location under the policy. KeyBank, named as a loss payee on the policy, separately sought summary judgment on its cross-claim against Morales for breach of a loan note and deficiency after default on installment payments. The court granted both motions for summary judgment, finding that the defendants' failure to respond meant all material facts in the insurers' and bank's statements were admitted, that the misrepresentation was material as a matter of law allowing rescission, that the loss fell within the policy exclusion, and that KeyBank as a simple loss payee had no independent rights to recover under the voided policy while also being entitled to judgment on the note.
This case arose from a 2006 plane crash in Guatemala that killed five people aboard a Cessna aircraft with a Teledyne engine; the flight was returning injured individuals from a traffic accident for medical care when the engine reportedly failed. Plaintiffs brought consolidated tort claims for negligence and strict liability against Teledyne on behalf of the decedents. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the federal General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) imposed an 18-year statute of repose barring the claims. The court denied the motion, holding that Guatemalan law governs all substantive issues including statutes of limitations and repose, rendering GARA inapplicable, and that even if GARA applied the emergency exception for medical transport would likely preserve the claims of the injured passengers.
This case involves a trademark infringement dispute in which Tiramisu International LLC, owner of the registered 'Tiramisu' mark for liquors, sued Clever Imports LLC after the defendant began selling imported liquor labeled 'Europa Tiramisu' and refused to comply with cease-and-desist demands or discovery orders. Following the defendant's failure to secure counsel and repeated noncompliance, the court entered a default judgment. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting in part the plaintiff's motion by issuing a permanent injunction against further use of the mark, awarding $53,375 in damages equal to the defendant's gross sales, $56,623.25 in reasonable attorneys' fees, and $145 in costs, while denying the request for treble damages.