John C. Shabaz

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case involved Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., and individual voters challenging several Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules that restrict the speech of judicial candidates, including provisions on impartiality, recusal based on prior statements, and prohibitions on pledges or commitments about issues likely to come before the court. The plaintiffs sought to distribute surveys to candidates on topics like the death penalty and publish the responses, but candidates declined due to the rules. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss challenges to SCR 60.04(1)(b), 60.04(4), and 60.05(1)(a) for lack of standing or other reasons, but granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the remaining claims. It held that SCR 60.04(4)(f) is facially unconstitutional because its "appears to commit" language is overbroad and vague, creating a chilling effect on speech similar to the announce clause invalidated in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White. The court also ruled that SCR 60.06(3)(b) is unconstitutional as applied to candidates responding to the specific survey, as it unduly restricts protected political speech.

free speechelections

Andy Griffith, the famous actor, sued William Fenrick, who legally changed his name to Andrew Jackson Griffith and ran for sheriff of Grant County, Wisconsin under the name Andy Griffith while using campaign materials referencing the plaintiff and Mayberry. The suit alleged federal trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, Wisconsin common law trade name infringement, and invasion of privacy under Wis. Stat. § 995.50(2)(b). The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the federal claims, finding no evidence that the name was used in commerce in a way that caused blurring or tarnishment and no proof of damages. It then dismissed the state claims without prejudice, declining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) due to the dismissal of all federal claims and the novel state-law issues presented.

electionsbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Bugulu v. Gonzalez, a married couple residing in Wisconsin sued federal immigration officials seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the immediate adjudication of the husband's pending application for adjustment of status under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, arguing the court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to order action on the application, while defendants cross-moved for dismissal. The court granted defendants' motion and dismissed the case, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars judicial review of discretionary decisions or actions by the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security, including delays in processing adjustment applications. The ruling followed precedents finding no clear, non-discretionary duty to adjudicate such applications within a specific timeframe, precluding mandamus relief.

immigrationprocedure

This case arose from a personal injury lawsuit filed by a guest injured on a water slide at a resort, which was settled by all parties except for a remaining indemnification dispute between the current owner Great Wolf (buyer) and prior owner Black Wolf (seller) under their 1999 purchase agreement. Black Wolf sought indemnification from Great Wolf for claims based on alleged pre-closing negligence in the slide's design and construction, arguing that the injury occurred after closing and thus triggered the buyer's duty to indemnify under section 10.2. The court granted summary judgment to Great Wolf and denied Black Wolf's motion, ruling that the agreement expressly allocated pre-closing liabilities and violations of laws or regulations to the seller without assumption by the buyer, and that requiring indemnification for the seller's own pre-closing conduct would contradict the contract's structure and other provisions like section 2.2(e).

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves appeals from bankruptcy court orders concerning a debtor's 1997 purchase of wireless communication licenses from the FCC on installment, the validity of the FCC's security interests in those licenses, and confirmation of a 2006 chapter 11 reorganization plan following an earlier 2000 plan. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's rulings that the FCC held a perfected security interest in the licenses, which had not been extinguished by the prior bankruptcy, and that the FCC's claims were partially secured with a determined value of about $33 million. The court also affirmed confirmation of the 2006 plan, finding it addressed unanticipated events after the Supreme Court's NextWave decision, complied with requirements to pay the present value of the licenses, and was proposed in good faith rather than as an improper attempt to modify the prior plan.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case was a product liability and breach of warranty suit brought by a Canadian freight company against Wisconsin-based trailer manufacturers over 200 intermodal shipping containers sold under a 2002 contract that included detailed specs, an AAR industry standard, a five-year limited repair-or-replace warranty, and broad disclaimers of other warranties and consequential damages. The court granted the defendants summary judgment on the thermal-performance warranty claim, holding that the contract's integration clause barred reliance on pre-contract test reports and that the disclaimers were enforceable under Wisconsin law. It also granted summary judgment on the consequential-damages claim, finding the exclusive remedy had not failed of its essential purpose because repairs had resolved the connection failures. The motions were denied as to other aspects of the case.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved parents of a student with disabilities, A.S., who sued the Madison Metropolitan School District under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) after disagreeing with the district's proposed individualized education program (IEP) for the 2005-2006 school year, including extended school year services, and seeking reimbursement for a private residential placement at Heartspring School. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, affirming the administrative law judge's decision that the district had offered a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. The court reasoned that the IEP was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit based on the record evidence, including testimony from experts, with no demonstrated need for residential placement or additional services to prevent regression, and that the parents had not established an educational nexus for behavioral issues at home.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Wisconsin and the Ho-Chunk Nation over a tribal-state gaming compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, including required payments, the validity of compact amendments authorizing additional class III games, and obligations to arbitrate. After prior proceedings where the Seventh Circuit found a lack of jurisdiction leading to an amended complaint, the district court addressed the Nation's motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for summary judgment on the claims for breach of contract and to compel arbitration. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) because the complaint sought to enjoin class III gaming allegedly conducted in violation of the compact. It granted summary judgment to the Nation on the claim regarding breach of negotiation and arbitration provisions but denied it on the remaining claims, while also upholding the applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act to the compact as affecting interstate commerce.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This products liability case arose when plaintiff Danny Cowley, treated for rheumatoid arthritis with the prescription drug Humira manufactured by defendant Abbott Laboratories, developed a demyelinating neurological disorder; he and his wife sued Abbott and pharmacy benefit manager Express Scripts in state court, alleging failure to adequately warn of the risk and strict liability for an unreasonably dangerous product. After removal to federal court on diversity grounds, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that North Carolina’s learned intermediary doctrine required Abbott only to warn the prescribing physician, that the product insert’s warnings about demyelinating disorders satisfied this duty, and that any further duty to inform the patient rested solely with the physician. The court also ruled that North Carolina law expressly rejects strict liability claims in products liability actions. Judgment was entered for the defendants, dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved owners of real property in Bayfield County, Wisconsin, who sued to quiet title against claims by the county and the United States to a reversionary interest in an abandoned railroad right of way crossing their land, based on federal land grants from the 1800s and statutes governing abandonment. After the United States disclaimed any interest in the property under 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(e), the court addressed whether this affected the county's potential claims under 43 U.S.C. § 912 and 16 U.S.C. § 1248(c) to establish a public highway. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that the disclaimer extinguished any contingent federal reversionary interest before it could vest in the county, rendering the county's asserted rights moot and entitling plaintiffs to declaratory relief that they own the property free of those claims. The decision rested on the timing of the disclaimer relative to any vesting events and the lack of an independent basis for the county's interest apart from the federal reversion.

propertyfederal power

This case involved a dispute between Key Equipment Finance Inc., a financing company, and Pioneer Transportation, Ltd., a trucking firm, over payments for mobile communication equipment acquired through a Master Lease Agreement and Equipment Schedule. Key sued for breach of contract and under Article 2A of the UCC after Pioneer stopped payments, claiming the equipment failed to meet performance representations made by the supplier. The court granted Key summary judgment on its breach of contract claim, awarding over $121,000 plus interest, while granting Pioneer partial summary judgment declaring the transaction a sale of goods with a security interest rather than a true finance lease. The core reasoning was that the equipment itself was not nonconforming, so Pioneer had no right to revoke acceptance or cancel under the UCC, and the contract terms barred termination of payment obligations regardless of third-party warranties.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved the Freedom From Religion Foundation and its members, suing as federal taxpayers, against Department of Veterans Affairs officials over the VA's clinical chaplaincy program, which integrates spiritual and pastoral care into patient treatment protocols at VA facilities. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Establishment Clause and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It reasoned that the program has a secular purpose of holistic patient care, does not have the primary effect of advancing religion, and avoids excessive government entanglement with religion, as evidenced by the program's long legislative history and clinical focus, with plaintiffs failing to show otherwise.

religious libertycivil rightshealthcare

In Genzyme Corp. v. Bishop, the plaintiff sued defendants for unjust enrichment alleging they received and retained benefits from possessing, selling, or using the plaintiff's materials and confidential non-trade secret information. Defendants moved to dismiss the claim under Rule 12(b)(6), contending it was preempted by Wisconsin's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which displaces restitutionary claims based on misappropriation of trade secrets. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint's explicit reference to non-trade secret information meant the claim might not be preempted and that determining whether the information meets the statutory definition of a trade secret requires a fact-intensive inquiry best resolved after further record development at summary judgment rather than on the pleadings.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission suing Regal-Beloit Corporation for allegedly retaliating against employee Edmund Meadows by terminating him after he cooperated in an investigation of a subsidiary. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the EEOC's two-year delay in filing suit after the charge was filed barred the action under the doctrine of laches. The court denied the motion, finding that the delay was not unreasonable as a matter of law and that the defendant failed to demonstrate material prejudice from the delay, as the key decision-maker remained available and additional back pay did not impose an undue burden.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure