This case involved Safeco Insurance Company seeking to enforce a General Agreement of Indemnity against Lake Asphalt Paving & Construction and related defendants after Lake Asphalt defaulted on two bonded construction projects. Safeco had completed the projects under its performance bonds and sought specific performance to require the defendants to post collateral security matching its reserve amount of $1,990,070. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Safeco's motion for partial summary judgment on Count IV, ordering the defendants to deposit the collateral by September 8, 2011. The court reasoned that the indemnity agreement unambiguously required the posting of collateral upon demand, the facts were uncontroverted, and there was no evidence of bad faith by Safeco in setting the reserve.
This case is a federal declaratory judgment action brought by insurer James River against Impact Strategies and others, seeking a ruling that James River has no duty under a commercial general liability policy to defend or indemnify the defendants in an underlying Illinois state-court negligence suit arising from a construction-site injury. Defendant Impact moved to dismiss based on the Wilton/Brillhart abstention doctrine, arguing the coverage issues should be resolved in the parallel state proceeding. The district court granted the motion in part, staying the federal action rather than dismissing it. The court reasoned that the Declaratory Judgment Act gives federal courts discretion to abstain when the same parties and issues not governed by federal law are already pending in state court, and here the Illinois court could more efficiently resolve all related claims, including newly added third-party coverage claims against James River. The court found the proceedings parallel and no procedural manipulation by the parties.
The case involved the State of Missouri, through its Attorney General, suing Portfolio Recovery Associates in state court under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act for allegedly deceptive and unfair debt collection practices, including attempting to collect discharged debts and filing false affidavits, and seeking injunctive relief, penalties, and restitution. Defendants removed the action to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act on the theory that it qualified as a class action and under bankruptcy removal provisions. The district court granted the state's motion to remand, holding that the suit is not a class action under CAFA because it was filed by the Attorney General under the MMPA without any requirement of class certification and the state is the real party in interest. The court further determined that the action qualifies for the exception to bankruptcy removal for exercises of governmental police or regulatory power.
This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company and First State Insurance Company sought declaratory judgments regarding their obligations to indemnify The Doe Run Resources Corporation under primary and excess policies for bodily injury and property damage claims arising from Doe Run's lead smelter operations. Count Three specifically requested declarations that the policies provided no coverage for settlements in two underlying lawsuits, Warden and BNSF. Doe Run moved to dismiss the BNSF portion of Count Three for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on ripeness grounds. The court granted the motion, holding that no actual controversy existed because Doe Run had not asserted any coverage claim against Hartford for the BNSF settlement and there was no substantial probability it would do so, rendering the request for declaratory relief hypothetical and unfit for judicial decision under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
This case involved the State of Missouri, through its Secretary of State and Attorney General, filing suit in state court against Stifel, Nicolaus & Company and related defendants, seeking damages for customers who purchased auction rate securities. Defendants removed the action to federal court under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), arguing it qualified as a removable covered class action involving a covered security. The court granted the state's motion to remand, holding that SLUSA's removal provision applies only to private party class actions precluded by the statute's limitations on state-law fraud claims, and explicitly preserves state enforcement actions brought by states on their own behalf. The decision relied on the statutory text of SLUSA subsections (d) and (e) as well as Supreme Court precedent interpreting the removal section as limited to precluded private actions.
In this case, plaintiff Hubbs Machine & Manufacturing, Inc. sued defendant Brunson Instrument Co. for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, Missouri trademark dilution, common law trademark infringement, and unfair competition, alleging Brunson infringed its federally registered "SM" mark used on industrial survey targets and related metrology products. Brunson moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the "SM" mark was generic and thus unprotectable, and that the unfair competition claim lacked sufficient factual allegations. The court denied the motion in full, holding that the federal registration of the mark created a rebuttable presumption of validity and distinctiveness that Brunson's genericness argument did not overcome at the pleading stage. The court further concluded that Missouri unfair competition claims are not limited to trade-secret misuse and that the complaint adequately stated a claim based on the alleged misuse of trade names or marks.
