District Court, W.D. Wisconsin — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Hoyt v. Ellsworth Cooperative Creamery
District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2008-01-10 · cited 10×
This case involves employees of Ellsworth Cooperative Creamery who sued the employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin wage law, claiming they were not compensated for all hours worked, including time spent changing into required uniforms before punching in and pre-shift preparation activities. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that its use of scheduled shift times and approval process for extra work satisfied all wage obligations and that time clock records did not reflect actual compensable time. The court denied the motion, holding that disputed facts existed about the existence of an unwritten 10-minute pre-shift policy, time spent obtaining shift information after punching in, and the accuracy of the employer's rounding and recording practices, which created triable issues under the FLSA on whether all hours actually worked were paid.
labor & employmentprocedure
Masel v. Mansavage
District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2007-12-17
Plaintiffs Ben Masel and his U.S. Senate campaign sued University of Wisconsin officials, including Memorial Union staff and directors, after being directed to stop collecting petition signatures and displaying campaign signs on the Memorial Union Terrace, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was removed to federal court, the Board of Regents was dismissed by stipulation, and the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion and dismissed all First Amendment claims with prejudice, holding that the university's FM1-5 literature distribution policy, which restricts uninvited campaign activities to designated areas, is constitutional on its face and as applied because the institution may control its property and limit such expression without violating free speech rights under Seventh Circuit precedent in Gilíes v. Blanchard. The court also found the defendants entitled to qualified immunity from damages claims.
free speechcivil rightselections
Adams v. NEWELL RUBBERMAID INC.
District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2007-11-15
This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Kathleen Adams and Snap-Saver, LLC against Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and Target Corporation, alleging that Rubbermaid's Premier food container storage systems infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,692,617, which covers a system for stacking containers and their covers using specific connectors for organized storage. The court addressed Newell's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, focusing on claim construction of the patent's requirements for a 'connector' on covers that enables both cover-to-cover stacking and attachment to vessel bases. The court construed the claims to require such a connector without mandating identical connection methods for both functions and found that the Premier system's covers, with their inner and outer depression lips, contain the requisite connector element despite using distinct connection points. Accordingly, the court denied the motion, ruling that Newell failed to establish non-infringement as a matter of law based on the undisputed facts.
business & regulatoryproperty
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Magellan Navigation, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2007-08-31 · cited 6×
This case involves a patent infringement suit brought by Encyclopaedia Britannica against Magellan Navigation, TomTom, and American TV, alleging that the defendants' navigation system devices infringed two patents (the '018 and '437 patents) related to user interfaces for searching databases, which were continuations of an earlier patent already being litigated in Texas against other parties. The defendants moved to sever claims against American TV and transfer the entire case to the Western District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for consolidation with the related Texas actions. The court granted the transfer motion as to all claims and defendants, finding the Western District of Texas to be a clearly more convenient forum that would promote judicial efficiency through consolidation, conserve resources for the parties, and prevent forum shopping by the plaintiff. It dismissed the motion to sever and stay as moot, noting that the patents share common claims and that the Texas cases had been pending for over a year with discovery stayed pending claim construction rulings.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Hecker v. Deere & Co.
District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2007-06-21 · cited 5×
In this ERISA class action, participants in Deere & Company's 401(k) plans sued Deere and affiliated Fidelity entities, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty through selection of investment options carrying excessive fees and inadequate disclosure of revenue-sharing arrangements among the funds. The district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. It held that ERISA's safe-harbor provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1104(c), insulated the plan fiduciaries because participants retained meaningful control over their investments, being offered 23 Fidelity funds plus over 2,500 additional options through BrokerageLink whose expense ratios ranged from 0.07% to over 1% and were set in the retail marketplace. The court further concluded that Deere's disclosures satisfied ERISA requirements and that the Fidelity defendants lacked fiduciary status over plan investment selection or fee disclosures.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory
Weismueller v. Kosubucki
District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2007-06-19
The case involves a challenge by an out-of-state law student to Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 40.03, which grants diploma privilege admission to the state bar for graduates of the two in-state ABA-accredited law schools without requiring the bar exam, while mandating that graduates of all other ABA-accredited schools take the exam. Plaintiff Weismueller sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the rule discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact. It reasoned that the rule does not discriminate against non-residents, as both Wisconsin residents and non-residents who did not attend the in-state schools must take the exam, resulting only in incidental effects on interstate commerce; under the Pike balancing test, any burden is not clearly excessive relative to the state's legitimate interest in ensuring familiarity with Wisconsin law for bar admission.
civil rightsbusiness & regulatory