This case involved a breach of contract dispute in which Jahan Co., a New Jersey buyer, sued Dakota Industries, a South Dakota seller in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, for $130,000 paid for defective field jackets plus additional damages, after filing its complaint in the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court. The New Jersey court entered a default judgment against Dakota for failing to respond, and Dakota appealed the denial of its motion to vacate that judgment and transfer the case. The district court held that the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction under the 1978 Bankruptcy Act's provisions for proceedings related to title 11 cases during the transition period, that service by certified mail was proper under the Bankruptcy Rules, and that Dakota's counsel had not shown excusable neglect or good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 and Bankruptcy Rule 755 to justify vacating the default, given the need for promptness in bankruptcy matters and the lack of a meritorious defense. The court therefore affirmed the refusal to vacate the judgment.
The case concerned claims by Midway Manufacturing and Coleco that Bandai's handheld electronic games, Galaxian and Packri Monster, infringed Midway's copyrights in the audiovisual displays of its arcade games Pac-Man and Galaxian as well as Midway's trademarks in those names. The district court examined the games' protectable elements, applied the substantial similarity test for audiovisual works, and considered factors such as originality and market audience. It concluded that Bandai's games shared enough protected expression with Midway's to support findings of copyright infringement and that the names created a likelihood of consumer confusion for trademark purposes. The court therefore granted summary judgment on several infringement claims and found a strong likelihood of success warranting preliminary injunctive relief.
This case was a class action antitrust suit filed on behalf of New Jersey purchasers of dairy products, alleging that the defendant companies conspired to fix and maintain prices. After discovery, the parties settled for $2,150,000, which the court approved as fair and reasonable. The opinion focused on plaintiffs' counsel's fee petition, applying the lodestar standards from Lindy I and Lindy II by calculating reasonable hours and hourly rates for attorneys and paralegals across multiple firms, then adjusting upward with a 2.1 multiplier for contingency and quality of work. The court awarded total fees of $454,559.95 plus reimbursement of documented expenses. The decision emphasized scrutiny of time records and rates to ensure compensation reflected only services benefiting the class.
The case involved defendants Anthony Provenzano and others who were convicted by a jury in May 1979 of federal racketeering violations after a speedy trial. While their direct appeals were pending or after they were denied, the defendants filed multiple post-conviction motions, including under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 for a new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence such as FBI reports, magistrate documents about a witness's escape charge, and purportedly inconsistent witness testimony. The court denied the motions, ruling that the evidence did not qualify as newly discovered, was not material, or failed to satisfy the conjunctive test for relief. The decision stressed the societal interest in finality of judgments after speedy trials and the need to prevent abuse of collateral attacks that indefinitely delay enforcement of convictions.
This case involved a gasoline station franchisee who sued his franchisor and related entities after they sought to terminate his franchise and lease agreements for purchasing gasoline from alternative suppliers instead of the designated source, in alleged violation of exclusive dealing clauses; the plaintiff claimed these provisions and their enforcement breached federal antitrust laws. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that the defendants lacked sufficient market power for the arrangements to unreasonably restrain trade under the Sherman Act. It further held that the clauses were justified by legitimate business reasons, including protection of product quality and trademark integrity, and were consistent with precedents allowing such supplier restrictions tied to leased equipment or branding.
The case involved the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission bringing suit under section 234(c) of the Atomic Energy Act to collect $4050 in civil penalties from Radiation Technology, Inc., for alleged violations of regulations and license conditions governing the possession and use of byproduct radioactive materials. The court held that it had jurisdiction over the collection action and that the defendant was entitled to de novo review, but after reviewing the administrative record and affidavits submitted with the cross-motions for summary judgment, it concluded that no trial was required. The court granted the Commission's motion in part, ordering RTI to pay certain of the assessed penalties, based on findings that the inspections were reasonable, the violations were properly documented, and the statutory and regulatory procedures had been followed.