The case involved plaintiffs, as co-executors of their father's estate, suing the former and current trustees of a company pension plan and the sponsoring corporation under ERISA for allegedly withheld and undistributed pension benefits. The dispute centered on the administration and distribution of benefits from a retirement plan that held primarily real estate assets and had only three participants, all family members of a closely held packaging company. After a bench trial, the court dismissed all claims, concluding there was insufficient evidence of fiduciary breaches, improper withholding of benefits, or willful misconduct by the trustees that would warrant damages or injunctive relief.
In I.R.V. Merchandising Corp. v. Jay Ward Productions, Inc., the plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage after the defendant withdrew from a proposed exclusive licensing agreement for cartoon characters and instead used another agent for some of the same prospective licensees. The defendant moved for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b). The court denied the motion on the breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims because disputed questions of material fact existed regarding whether an enforceable agreement or promise had been formed at the March 27, 1991 meeting, but granted the motion to dismiss those claims insofar as they sought damages for loss of reputation due to the absence of enumerated specific harms. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the tortious interference claim as a matter of law because the plaintiff failed to allege any prospective contractual relationship between itself and third-party licensees.
The case involved a shipper, Chilewich Partners, suing several ocean carriers for delivering shipments of cattlehides to a Korean tannery's bonded warehouses without obtaining the original bills of lading, after which the hides disappeared and payment via letters of credit was not received. Chilewich claimed the carriers were liable in conversion under the Pomerene Bills of Lading Act, the Harter Act, and maritime contract law. Following a bench trial, the court dismissed all claims against the remaining defendants. The court reasoned that the shipments were made under "stale" bill of lading terms and "mill delivery" contracts, under which the parties expected delivery to the warehouses without immediate presentation of the bills of lading, and the carriers had fulfilled their obligations accordingly while Chilewich retained the bills and assumed the risks.
In Saleh v. United States, plaintiff Ahmed Musaed Saleh, a merchant seaman, sued the United States under the Jones Act and general maritime law for unseaworthiness, seeking damages for injuries from an alleged slip-and-fall down a ladderwell on the S/S Maine. He claimed the steps were slippery due to accumulated grease, oil, and water, and worn from use, causing back and hand injuries while fetching milk. After a bench trial, the court denied Saleh's motion for judgment and granted the defendant's motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(c). The court found insufficient evidence that slippery substances were present on the steps at the time of the incident, as contradicted by deck logs and witness testimony, and that the diamond-ridged steps did not render the vessel unseaworthy or the United States negligent. It also noted Saleh's awareness of ladder safety precautions and lack of proof on causation for the claimed defects.
Reebok sued K-Mart, Melville, and LJO alleging that K-Mart's sale of the Titan sneaker infringed Reebok's Stripecheck trademark and the trade dress of its Ex-O-Fit and Freestyle shoes, asserting claims of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, counterfeiting under the Lanham Act, and unfair competition and dilution under New York law. The defendants denied the allegations and K-Mart and Melville counterclaimed to cancel Reebok's federal trademark registration based on allegedly false statements in PTO filings. Following a four-day bench trial, the court ruled for the defendants on all of Reebok's claims and rejected the counterclaim, determining that Reebok failed to prove likelihood of confusion or other required elements.
The case involved a federally chartered credit union suing its former treasurer for common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging improper management of investments and inaccurate financial statements during 1986-1987. After a bench trial, the court granted the defendant's motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(c) to dismiss for failure to prove a prima facie case. The court found that the board of directors had active oversight of investments and accounting, that the treasurer's actions reflected standard practices without evidence of intent to deceive, and that accounting discrepancies did not establish fraud or fiduciary breach under state law. Jurisdiction was based on diversity, with no implied federal cause of action recognized.