Edward James Devitt

This products liability diversity case arose when plaintiff Natividad Seefeld, a line operator at LaMaur, Inc., was severely burned after a pressurized aerosol can exploded while she removed it from a hot water bath test at work. Defendant Crown, Cork & Seal Co., which supplied the empty cans, moved for partial summary judgment on the strict liability claims for manufacturing defect and failure to warn, conceding that design defect and other counts would remain. The court denied the motion, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed for trial under Minnesota strict liability standards from cases like Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc. and Bilotta v. Kelley, including whether a cold-welded sideseam constituted a manufacturing defect present when sold, whether it proximately caused the injury, and whether the explosion and resulting harm were foreseeable such that a duty to warn existed. The court noted that knowledge of any defect would be imputed to Crown under strict liability and that the issues of duty, adequacy of warnings, and causation were questions properly left to the jury rather than resolved on summary judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Northern States Power Company (NSP), which operates a nuclear power plant adjacent to the Prairie Island Mdewakanton Sioux Indian Community reservation, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to preliminarily enjoin the Community from enforcing its newly adopted Nuclear Radiation Control Ordinance. The ordinance would require NSP to obtain tribal licenses for transporting radioactive materials across reservation lands (including roads and rail lines) and to submit environmental impact statements for waste management facilities, with associated fees, penalties, and broad regulatory oversight. The court granted NSP's motion for a preliminary injunction, restraining the Community from enforcing the ordinance or interfering with plant access, and stayed the Interior Board of Indian Appeals order affirming the ordinance. The core reasoning was that the ordinance directly regulates non-tribal activities, its approval by the Bureau of Indian Affairs was suspended pending appeal under federal regulations, and the Community's attempt to enforce it despite the suspension warranted interim judicial relief to maintain the status quo.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In McLean v. Carlson Companies, Inc., plaintiff Claire McLean sued her former employer in state court under a Minnesota statute prohibiting retaliation against whistleblowing employees, claiming she was fired for reporting violations of federal law in the administration of an employee benefit plan. The defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempts the state claim. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that ERISA preempts the retaliatory discharge claim because it relates to an ERISA-covered employee benefit plan and that ERISA provides a civil remedy for such wrongs, thus establishing federal jurisdiction.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involves a motor carrier, Zurek Express, suing a shipper, Intermetro Industries, to recover alleged freight undercharges of $130,771.02 on 768 shipments based on filed tariff rates after Zurek failed to file a tariff page reflecting a negotiated discount. Intermetro moved to refer the matter to the Interstate Commerce Commission to assess the reasonableness of the tariff rates and to stay proceedings, while Zurek sought summary judgment. The court denied Zurek's summary judgment motion and granted the referral, holding that rate unreasonableness may be raised as a defense in an undercharge action and that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies because the ICC possesses expertise to ensure uniform regulation of rates. The decision rested on Intermetro's submission of expert affidavit evidence showing significant rate disparities compared to negotiated and other shipper rates, distinguishing the case from precedents lacking such proof.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In this case, First Bank System, Inc. and related entities sued the Secretary of Labor for a declaration that services provided to discretionary pension accounts did not violate ERISA's prohibited transaction provisions under 29 U.S.C. § 1106. The Secretary filed a counterclaim alleging that the services breached fiduciary duties under ERISA. The banks raised laches as an affirmative defense in reply. The court granted the Secretary's motion to strike the laches defense, reasoning that laches is unavailable against the United States in ERISA actions brought by the Secretary, who enforces interests distinct from those of private litigants.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

This case involved the FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed Oak Park Bank, suing several former bank directors for $2.4 million in damages based on claims including breach of fiduciary duty under Minnesota law and gross negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss the fiduciary duty claim, arguing that the federal statute 12 U.S.C. § 1821(k) from FIRREA preempts state-law claims that do not allege at least gross negligence. The court granted the motion and dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty count, holding that the statute's language limits the FDIC to actions for gross negligence or more culpable conduct and does not preserve lesser state claims, while denying the other motions to dismiss or for a more definite statement.

business & regulatoryfederal powertorts & liability

The case involved the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), acting as receiver for the failed State Bank of Morgan, seeking recovery under a fidelity bond issued by Banclnsure for losses caused by the dishonest acts of the bank's president. The court addressed motions for summary judgment concerning whether the bond's two-year contractual limitations period or FIRREA's six-year statute of limitations applied to the claim, as well as an alter ego defense and a counterclaim. The court granted partial summary judgment to the FDIC, ruling that FIRREA's longer limitations period applies retroactively and overrides the contractual provision, allowing the claim to proceed, and dismissed the redundant counterclaim, while deferring decision on the alter ego defense pending state court clarification.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involves federal criminal charges against Richard McElrath for being a felon in possession of a firearm and against McElrath and Tyawanda Anderson for conspiring to distribute crack cocaine, arising from evidence seized during two searches of a Minneapolis duplex in 1990. The court addressed pretrial motions to suppress physical evidence, sever counts and defendants, amend a detention order, disclose a confidential informant, and suppress statements. It denied suppression of evidence from the August 14 search, finding the supporting affidavit and warrant valid, but granted suppression of evidence from the December 28 search because the warrant had expired after ten days under Minnesota law and was not properly extended by telephone without an oath or new probable cause. The court denied the remaining motions, concluding there was no basis to sever the charges, release the defendant, disclose the informant, or exclude the defendants' statements.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by plaintiff Piekarski against Home Owners Savings Bank entities and related parties, alleging breach of contract, wrongful discharge, misrepresentation, and tortious interference after his 1988 firing. Following a state court liability finding and damages trial in federal court after removal due to savings and loan legislation, defendants sought post-trial relief under federal rules to challenge the liability determinations and damage award. The court granted the motions in part by relieving Knutson Mortgage Corporation and Home Owners—Boston of liability, finding the state court's rulings clearly erroneous as to those parent companies, but denied all other requested relief including further changes to liability or damages. The decision rested on the authority of federal courts upon removal to correct manifest errors under doctrines like law of the case and Rules 52(b) and 59(e), while treating prior state rulings as if made in federal court.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This ERISA case involved participants and current trustees suing former trustees of an employee retirement trust for allegedly breaching fiduciary duties through six specific investments made between 1982 and 1986, including in BioNexus, Charlton, Basics, Dain, RSP III, and Matterhorn. The court denied the plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment and to strike affidavits. It granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds, finding that the challenged investments occurred more than six years before the November 1989 complaint and that neither fraud nor concealment nor actual knowledge by plaintiffs triggered a different limitations period under 29 U.S.C. § 1113. The court denied the defendants' separate motion for summary judgment based on lack of proximate cause.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a wrongful termination action brought by plaintiff Peter R. Piekarski, a former vice-president at Home Owners Savings Bank, after his January 1988 firing; the state court had already found defendants liable on breach of contract, retaliatory discharge, and intentional interference claims, leaving the federal district court to determine damages. Plaintiff sought roughly $800,000, including wage and fringe benefit losses from 1984 onward due to alleged retaliatory wage discrimination, plus amounts for loss of reputation, mental distress, and punitive damages. The court held it was bound by the state court's factual findings of retaliatory conduct by defendant Donley that tainted plaintiff's salary and career path starting in 1984, and it addressed the appropriate time frame for back pay and front pay while noting that damages need not be calculated with mathematical precision so long as they are reasonably attributable to the wrong. Defendants contested the duration of losses and argued for limits such as the date of conservatorship or statute of limitations bars, which the court evaluated under doctrines like continuing violation.

labor & employment

In this ERISA case concerning management of the Continental Machines, Inc. Employee Trust, plaintiffs sued former trustees Magnell and Weldon for making impermissibly risky investments and failing to reasonably investigate alternatives, while seeking recovery only from those two defendants. The defendants filed third-party claims for contribution against other fiduciaries including Heist, Parkin, and the plan administrator, alleging they were primarily responsible for any losses. The court granted the motions to dismiss the contribution claims, holding that ERISA contains no provision for contribution or indemnification among fiduciaries and that its integrated enforcement scheme, as interpreted in Supreme Court precedent like Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Russell, indicates Congress did not intend to authorize such remedies.

labor & employment

This diversity case involved plaintiff Jonathon Knutson, a Minnesota distributor of Rexair vacuum cleaners, who sued Rexair and its officers under the Minnesota Franchise Act for selling him unregistered Dakota distributorships without required disclosures. Defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue or to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Michigan, relying on a forum selection clause added to the parties' annual distributor agreements that designated Michigan state or federal courts for any claims arising from the agreement or the parties' relationship. The court applied federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) to evaluate the clause, determined that it covered the statutory claim, and concluded that transfer was warranted rather than dismissal. It therefore granted the motion to transfer while denying dismissal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case was a diversity action brought by Minnesota residents against moving companies, an insurer, and an adjuster for the loss of personal property destroyed in a fire during an intrastate move in Washington. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Minnesota or, alternatively, to transfer venue to the Western District of Washington. The court denied the motions, holding that the Minnesota long-arm statute was satisfied because defendants transacted business in the state and caused injury there, and that minimum contacts existed to meet due process requirements given the companies' interstate operations and revenues from Minnesota shipments. The court further found that transfer was not warranted because it would merely shift inconvenience to the plaintiffs and the interests of justice favored keeping the case in Minnesota.

procedurepropertytorts & liability

In this diversity action, Mid-America Bank sued American Casualty under a Banker's Blanket Bond to recover over $745,000 in losses from improper loans and related schemes carried out by three bank employees who concealed their conduct through false records and reports. The insurer moved for summary judgment, contending that the suit was barred by the bond's 24-month contractual limitations period running from discovery of the loss and that certain claimed losses for potential income were excluded. The court denied the motion, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to when the bank discovered facts that would cause a reasonable person to assume a covered loss had occurred, given regulatory reports and internal examinations that did not clearly establish employee dishonesty, and that the policy's potential-income exclusion was ambiguous and required jury resolution.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Vail v. Derwinski, a class of military veterans sued the Department of Veterans Affairs seeking declaratory relief to prevent the VA from pursuing deficiency judgments against them after non-judicial foreclosures on their VA-guaranteed home loans in Minnesota, where subsequent purchasers had defaulted. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and declared that the VA lacked authority to enforce such deficiencies. The reasoning centered on the fact that under federal regulations, the VA's subrogation rights derive from the lender's rights, which are barred by Minnesota's anti-deficiency statute in non-judicial foreclosures, and its indemnity claims are similarly precluded by state law protections for the veterans.

federal powerproperty

The case involved defendant Mario Naylor, who was convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute approximately 2 kilograms of cocaine base and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. The statutory mandatory minimum sentence was 10 years on each count, while the Sentencing Guidelines called for a range of 235 to 293 months based on an offense level of 38. The court decided to depart from the Guidelines and impose concurrent 10-year sentences, finding that the Commission had not adequately considered mitigating circumstances including Naylor's clean record aside from a minor incident, her youth, employment history, and her exploitation and manipulation by her 15-years-older romantic partner who influenced her to quit her job and participate in the offenses.

criminal law

In this ERISA action, trustees of multiemployer welfare and pension funds sued a television station to recover unpaid contributions for freelance performers and producers under a collective bargaining agreement, following an arbitrator's ruling that required such payments only prospectively from August 1988. The court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment and denied the trustees' motion for partial summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the arbitration award, which interpreted rights created by the collective bargaining agreement and was made final and binding by its terms, had preclusive effect on the subsequent ERISA claim under Section 515, which obligates contributions in accordance with the agreement; this differed from cases involving non-waivable statutory rights under other laws like the FLSA or Title VII.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a sentencing hearing to determine if defendant Fitol was subject to a five-year mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii) for growing 100 or more marijuana plants. The government seized 190 marijuana specimens from the defendant's basement, including larger plants and numerous smaller cuttings in aquariums and pots, all of which had root systems. The defendant conceded that 60 specimens were plants but argued the remaining 118 were mere cuttings not qualifying as plants under the statute. The court held that all 178 specimens counted as marijuana plants because they were separate entities with leaves and roots, planted with the intent to grow to full size, and the statute makes no distinction among growth stages or between cuttings and more mature plants. Accordingly, the defendant was subject to the mandatory minimum sentence.

criminal law

The case involved a defendant charged with possessing with intent to distribute and manufacturing approximately 275 marijuana plants, who pled guilty to the possession count with the number of plants to be determined at sentencing. The defendant moved to declare the enhanced penalty provision of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii) for violations involving 100 or more marijuana plants unconstitutional on vagueness grounds. The court denied the motion, holding that the term “marihuana plants” is sufficiently definite to provide fair warning of prohibited conduct under the void-for-vagueness doctrine. The court reasoned that ordinary people would understand the term to include small plants or cuttings with roots, that the defendant’s large-scale basement growing operation clearly fell within the statute’s prohibition, and that the defendant would face punishment based on weight even if the items were not deemed plants.

criminal law