This case involved a dispute between Myriad Development, Inc., a software company, and Alltech, Inc., a disaster inspection services provider, arising from three contracts for developing and licensing an inspection management system called Risk Manager (formerly Apprise) to support Alltech's work with FEMA. Myriad claimed unpaid contract amounts and trade secret misappropriation by Alltech, while Alltech sought to limit or eliminate those claims through post-verdict motions. After reviewing the evidence and applicable law under standards for judgment as a matter of law, the court granted both parties' motions in part and denied them in part, awarding Myriad $21,263 for the APPRISE Agreement, $198,110 for the Subcontract for Labor, and $250,000 in reasonable royalties for trade secret misappropriation, but denying Alltech any recovery and adjusting damages to conform to the evidence and legal requirements such as choice-of-law provisions.
The case centered on Deliverance Poker, LLC's claims against Tiltware, LLC and poker player Michael Mizrachi arising from Mizrachi's alleged breach of a promotional sponsorship agreement with Deliverance and Tiltware's role in inducing that breach through its competing offer. The underlying dispute involved contract and tortious interference theories tied to Mizrachi switching his promotional efforts to Full Tilt Poker. The court dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the plaintiff did not meet its burden to establish complete diversity because the citizenship of the members of the LLC parties was not adequately proven, that Mizrachi's presence as a party would destroy diversity, and that he was a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) whose joinder could not be avoided under the factors of Rule 19(b).
The case was a class action lawsuit by former waitresses and bartenders against a Cajun restaurant operator alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage and overtime rules, specifically improper overtime pay, uniform fee deductions from wages, and invalid tip credits due to lack of notice and sharing tips with non-tipped employees such as dishwashers and preparation cooks. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the overtime and uniform deduction claims, which the defendant conceded, and on the invalidity of including certain non-tipped workers in tip pools, but denied it in part on remaining factual disputes. The core reasoning applied FLSA provisions and persuasive DOL guidance to determine employee eligibility for tip pools based on whether they customarily and regularly receive tips, along with evidence from depositions and affidavits showing the duties of kitchen staff.
This case involves claims by former restaurant employees against their employer for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including failure to pay minimum wage due to improper tip pooling with non-tipped employees, unpaid overtime wages, and illegal deductions for uniforms. The plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action to include similarly situated employees. The court granted the motion for conditional certification, applying the lenient first-stage standard under FLSA Section 216(b) because discovery was not complete and the case was not ready for trial. The court found that the plaintiffs had presented substantial evidence showing they were similarly situated to other servers and bartenders regarding the alleged FLSA violations.
The case involved an investor suing Bear Stearns & Co. and employee Lisbeth Barron for alleged misrepresentations about the firm's role in pursuing an IPO for a startup company, claims brought under federal securities laws including Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) control-person liability to recover losses from a limited partnership investment. The magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full after the parties filed no objections, dismissed all claims against Bear Stearns and Barron, and closed the case.
The case involved a former Senior Vice President of Finance at Texas Mutual Insurance who alleged gender discrimination under federal and state laws, including the Equal Pay Act, after resigning in 1996; she claimed she was paid less than male counterparts and faced other discriminatory treatment. The defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case under the Equal Pay Act because her executive role could not be compared to those of other senior vice presidents overseeing different operations, as such high-level positions involve unique factors like experience and market forces that courts should not second-guess. The court also found insufficient evidence to support other claims, such as those involving promises of raises or replacement in her position, noting the absence of specific facts showing genuine issues for trial.
