In this patent litigation, Papst accused IBM of infringing its patents through the use of hard drive motors manufactured by Minebea under a license from Papst. IBM raised an affirmative defense claiming the patents were unenforceable due to Papst's inequitable conduct before the Patent and Trademark Office, including failure to disclose prior art and making misrepresentations. Papst moved to strike this defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), arguing that it lacked the particularity required by Rule 9(b) for allegations of fraud. The court determined that IBM's defense was insufficiently specific as it failed to detail the time, place, and nature of the alleged misconduct, and that facts provided outside the pleading could not cure the deficiency, but granted IBM leave to amend its answer by a specified date.
The case involves consolidated actions by Ronald Schultz, a welder/fitter employed at Louisiana Dock's barge repair facility on the Mississippi River, who sued Louisiana Dock and ACBL under the Jones Act and general maritime law for injuries sustained while inspecting and repairing barges. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Schultz was not a seaman and thus ineligible for those remedies, leaving him with claims only under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The court applied the two-prong Chandris test for seaman status, finding that while Schultz may have contributed to vessel functions, he lacked a substantial connection to any identifiable vessel or fleet of vessels, as his work was land-based, involved random assignments across various barges without voyages, and he did not eat, sleep, or travel on the vessels. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants.
This multidistrict litigation involved Louisiana insurance agents suing Texas and Louisiana law firms and attorneys, alleging that the defendants' joint solicitations of New York Life policyholders—through ads, mailings, and meetings—misrepresented policies as worthless and caused policy cancellations that harmed the agents' business. The defendants removed the cases to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, claiming the Louisiana defendants were fraudulently joined because no valid claim existed against them. The court granted the plaintiffs' motions to remand, holding that the Louisiana defendants were not fraudulently joined since the complaints could support causes of action for defamation and invasion of privacy under applicable state law, precluding diversity jurisdiction. It denied attorney fees but granted costs associated with the removal.
This multidistrict litigation involves consumer claims by owners of 1983-1990 Ford Bronco II vehicles alleging a design defect that makes the vehicles prone to rollover, seeking damages and equitable relief under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state law but not for personal injuries or deaths. The court had previously rejected a similar proposed class settlement in 1995 after a fairness hearing, finding the $4 million in requested attorney fees excessive relative to limited discovery and class benefits, which suggested possible collusion. In this order, the court declined to grant even preliminary approval to a new 1997 proposed settlement or allow notice to the class, citing the same concerns over disproportionate fees, minimal recovery for plaintiffs, and indications that the fee provisions did not eliminate the appearance of collusion, despite counsel's deference to the court's fee determination. The ruling followed review of the settlement terms, public statements by counsel, and conferences with the parties.
This case involves a franchise dispute in which plaintiffs sued America’s Favorite Chicken Company and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce for claims including breach of contract, detrimental reliance, violation of Louisiana’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, tortious interference, and abuse of rights. After the court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims under Louisiana law, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, arguing for the first time that Michigan law should apply and submitting new documents related to a counterclaim for an accounting. The court treated the motion as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and denied it, finding the choice-of-law argument untimely because it could have been raised earlier in extensive prior briefing. Even assuming Michigan law applied, the court determined that Michigan choice-of-law rules would still require Louisiana law due to express choice-of-law clauses in the franchise agreements selecting Louisiana. The court also concluded that the newly submitted documents did not justify reconsideration under the applicable standards for untimely evidence.
This case involves franchisees of Popeyes restaurants in Detroit suing America’s Favorite Chicken Company (AFC) and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) over marketing strategies following the 1989 merger of Popeyes and Church’s Fried Chicken. The plaintiffs alleged breach of express and implied contract, promissory estoppel, violations of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, tortious interference, abuse of rights, and conspiracy, claiming a dual-marketing approach harmed their stores by positioning Church’s as lower-scale competitors. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants on all claims, holding that the franchise agreements unambiguously permitted AFC to operate other systems like Church’s, that no reasonable reliance was shown on any alleged promises, and that the remaining tort and statutory claims lacked evidentiary support under applicable Louisiana law. The decision applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standards, finding no genuine issues of material fact after reviewing the record.
