District Court, E.D. Missouri — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
Furminator, Inc. v. Kim Laube & Co., Inc.
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2010-12-15 · cited 1×
This case is a consolidated patent dispute in which FURminator, Inc. alleged infringement of U.S. Patent 7,334,540 covering a pet grooming tool designed to remove loose hair from animals, while Kim Laube & Co., Inc. sought declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity along with claims of inequitable conduct, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and related state-law torts. After the case was transferred and realigned, Munchkin, Inc. settled, leaving Laube as the sole defendant; a bankruptcy stay was later lifted, allowing the court to address the pending motions. The court reviewed multiple cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement, validity under §§ 102, 103 and 112, inequitable conduct, and the non-patent counts, together with Daubert motions to exclude expert testimony and various evidentiary motions.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Fleishour v. Stewart Title Guar. Co.
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2010-09-28 · cited 1×
This case involved buyers of real property in Missouri who obtained a title insurance policy from the defendant insurer and later faced a third-party lawsuit claiming adverse possession over a portion of the land. The plaintiffs notified the insurer of the claim and sought defense under the policy, but the insurer sought to resolve its obligations by paying the anticipated diminution in value rather than providing a defense. After a bench trial, the court held that the insurer had breached its contractual duty to defend the plaintiffs in the adverse possession action and entered declaratory judgment to that effect. The court reasoned that the policy language required the insurer to defend against covered claims and did not permit it to satisfy that duty solely by tendering the amount of the insureds' potential loss. Damages were limited to the reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in defending the underlying suit, with further documentation required to calculate the precise amount.
property
HAWKEYE-SECURITY INS. CO. v. Bunch
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2010-09-15
This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by Hawkeye-Security Insurance Company and Midwestern Indemnity Company against former employees of Total Lock & Security, Inc. and The Installers Company, seeking a ruling that their policies provided no liability coverage for driver Daniel Brandt or underinsured motorist coverage for injured passenger Donald Bunch following a November 2007 automobile accident. After a bench trial, the court found that Brandt, who was intoxicated with a breathalyzer reading of 0.196, had consumed alcohol and lacked express or implied permission to operate the company Jeep Liberty under the employers' zero-tolerance policy against drinking and driving. The court concluded there was no coverage because Brandt was not an authorized driver at the time of the crash, as company rules prohibited any employee from granting permission to another who had been drinking and no implied permission existed given the known policy violations.
business & regulatorytorts & liability
Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co.
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2010-09-07 · cited 2×
The case involved a railroad employee who sued his employer, BNSF Railway, for back and neck injuries allegedly sustained when a locomotive bottomed out on a rough section of track subject to a slow order. The plaintiff brought claims under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) alleging negligence and violations of Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) regulations, and a separate strict liability claim under the LIA. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no evidence the locomotive's condition played a role in the incident and that FRSA regulations governed the track conditions and slow orders with no showing of a violation. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact on breach of duty or causation, as expert testimony was inadequate and no regulatory noncompliance was shown.
labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability
Charles F. Vatterott Const. v. Esteem Custom Homes
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2010-05-21
This case involved a copyright infringement claim by Charles F. Vatterott Construction Company and D.L. Design, Inc. against Esteem Custom Homes and others over the architectural design of a residential home called 'The Jefferson.' The district court had previously dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) because the copyright registration application had not been approved when the complaint was filed. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick that the registration requirement is not jurisdictional, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. It allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that related back to the original filing date, noted that the effective registration date preceded the lawsuit, and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory
United States v. Parks
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2010-04-09
This case involved the re-sentencing of defendant Jose Parks after remand from the Eighth Circuit, following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute heroin. The central issue was whether Parks' prior Missouri conviction for escape from confinement qualified as a predicate offense making him a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1, which would increase his sentencing range from 41-51 months to 151 months. The district court examined the specific facts of the escape—running past a front-door officer at a corrections facility—and concluded that the conduct presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to others, distinguishing it from the passive 'failure to report' offense analyzed in Chambers v. United States. Applying the Supreme Court's frameworks from Chambers and Begay, the court held that the escape involved purposeful, violent, and aggressive behavior that met the criteria for a violent felony equivalent, thereby affirming the career offender designation for re-sentencing.
criminal law