Joan N. Ericksen

In this case, plaintiff Select Comfort Corporation, a maker of air beds, sued competitor Sleep Better Store, LLC for violations of federal trademark and false advertising laws as well as several Minnesota consumer protection statutes, alleging misleading website comparisons, false claims about product origins and warranties, and improper sales tactics. The court addressed Sleep Better's motion to dismiss five of the claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), applying the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b) for fraud-based allegations. It granted the motion in part by dismissing the claims under the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and Consumer Fraud Act, reasoning that those claims, brought pursuant to the state's private attorney general statute, failed to sufficiently allege a public benefit. The court denied the motion as to the Lanham Act and Minnesota False Statement in Advertisement Act claims, finding that the supporting allegations, including those made on information and belief, met the particularity requirements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Elaine Humphrey sued Prudential Insurance Company of America under ERISA to recover long-term disability benefits under a plan sponsored by her former employer, KPMG, and also claimed breach of fiduciary duty after Prudential terminated her benefits. The district court granted Prudential's motion for summary judgment. Because the plan gave Prudential discretion to interpret its terms and determine eligibility, the court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard and upheld the denial as reasonable in light of the medical evidence in the administrative record, including opinions from Prudential's reviewing physicians. The court rejected Humphrey's arguments about procedural irregularities, additional evidence outside the record, and the fiduciary-duty claim.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involved claims by individual voters, election judges, and nonprofit organizations challenging Minnesota Statutes section 211B.11, subdivision 1, which bans the wearing or display of political buttons, badges, insignia, and campaign materials at or within 100 feet of polling places on primary or election day. Plaintiffs alleged that the statute and related enforcement policies by county elections managers and the secretary of state were facially unconstitutional and violated rights to free speech, association, voting, equal protection, and due process under the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, particularly as applied to items like Tea Party apparel and "Please ID Me" buttons. The court granted defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss the amended complaint. It reasoned that polling places constitute nonpublic forums where content-based speech restrictions are valid if reasonable and viewpoint-neutral, the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and the policies did not prevent voting or violate due process.

electionsfree speechcivil rights

In Zortman v. J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc., the plaintiff sued a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act after the collector left voicemail messages on her home and cell phones that disclosed her consumer debt, which her children overheard. The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the FDCPA requires a debt collector to purposefully or deliberately disclose debt information to a third party. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint stated a plausible claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b), which prohibits communicating debt information to third parties without consent. The court reasoned that the voicemails were left on systems that did not identify possible listeners, allowing the inference that the collector had reason to anticipate third-party access, and that the statute does not require deliberate intent to disclose to third parties.

business & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Collin Myrlie sued Countrywide Bank and Countrywide Home Loans after the bank foreclosed on his Dakota County, Minnesota property in November 2008, alleging that the defendants had promised but failed to complete a loan modification agreement in 2008 despite repeated assurances. Myrlie asserted claims for promissory estoppel and negligence, seeking damages for lost profits, increased costs, loss of remedies, and punitive damages. The district court, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court found no clear and definite promise to support estoppel, no legal duty owed by the bank to modify the loan under negligence principles, no evidence that the lack of modification proximately caused the foreclosure (which was permitted under the original loan terms due to missed payments), and no substantiated damages. The punitive damages claim was also rejected as improperly pleaded under Minnesota statute.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involves insurance companies suing chiropractic clinics, a massage therapy provider, a marketing entity, and associated individuals, alleging a scheme involving illegal solicitation of no-fault auto insurance claimants, submission of claims for unrendered or unnecessary services, kickbacks, and nondisclosure of financial interests. Plaintiffs asserted eleven counts including RICO violations, RICO conspiracy, multiple fraud claims, unjust enrichment, anti-kickback violations, and corporate practice of medicine issues. On defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after accepting the pleaded facts as true and applying the plausibility standard from Twombly and Iqbal, finding some claims like certain RICO counts insufficiently pleaded regarding enterprise structure and predicate acts while allowing others to proceed.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a class of pilots' counterclaim against their union, ALPA, alleging breach of the duty of fair representation under the Railway Labor Act by adopting a target benefit retirement plan (MP3) that allegedly disadvantaged older and more senior pilots in favor of parity among all pilots. The court granted ALPA's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claim with prejudice. The decision rested on the highly deferential standard of review for union bargaining choices, which requires evidence of discriminatory animus or hostility, and the absence of any genuine factual dispute showing such animus in the MEC's adoption of the plan during Northwest's bankruptcy to address limited resources and disparities in benefits.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Whalen v. Langfellow, plaintiff Michael Whalen, owner of a duplex in St. Paul, sued City police officers and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as claims under the Privacy Protection Act and state law, arising from searches of his property conducted on August 30, 2008, pursuant to warrants. The warrants were based on surveillance of heavy boxes delivered to the property, Whalen's ownership of a bookstore associated with a former Symbionese Liberation Army member, and postings at the bookstore calling for action during the 2008 Republican National Convention. The District Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the affidavits established probable cause for the warrants, that any misstatements did not undermine that finding, and that officers acted reasonably in securing the property and conducting the searches.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case concerns disputes over redemption rights and ownership of a Minnesota property after its 2006 foreclosure sale to WaMu, involving an unrecorded contract for deed and warranty deed held by plaintiff Jane Hayes-Broman, quitclaim transfers to real estate investors during the redemption period, and WaMu's subsequent failure with its assets acquired by Chase through the FDIC. Various parties filed motions for summary judgment regarding liens, title registration under Minnesota law, and the effect of federal banking receivership rules on prior agreements. The court granted the plaintiff's motion, denied First Minnesota Bank's motion, and granted in part the joint motion of the FDIC and Chase, reasoning that unregistered interests and certain post-foreclosure actions did not extinguish the plaintiff's equitable rights while applying limits from 12 U.S.C. § 1821 on enforcing certain agreements against the FDIC.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

American Medical Systems, Inc. sued Laser Peripherals, LLC for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,428,699, which covers a probe for laterally directing laser energy to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia; Laser Peripherals counterclaimed for declarations of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement and validity issues, along with motions to exclude expert testimony and to strike materials. It granted the motions in part and denied them in part after construing the patent claims, comparing the accused devices to the asserted claims, and evaluating prior art references for anticipation, obviousness, and enablement. The court set the remaining issues for trial.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a trademark infringement dispute between the American Association for Justice (AAJ), formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA), and a newly formed entity called The American Trial Lawyers Association, Inc., along with its incorporators including Keith Givens. AAJ had changed its name in December 2006 after a member vote, and shortly afterward the defendants reserved and used the similar name for solicitation letters starting in 2007, prompting AAJ to sue for infringement. The court granted AAJ’s motion for partial summary judgment on the defendants’ affirmative defense of trademark abandonment and denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The reasoning focused on evidence that AAJ had not abandoned its prior marks through continuous use and transition efforts, while defendants’ activities did not qualify for defenses such as fair use or lack of distinctiveness under the Lanham Act. The court also deferred rulings on issues like attorney fees and an accounting of profits pending further proceedings.

business & regulatory

This case involves American Medical Systems asserting patent infringement claims against Laser Peripherals regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,428,699 for a probe used in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia by laterally directing laser energy. LP counterclaimed for declarations of non-infringement and invalidity, and the court conducted a Markman hearing to construe disputed terms in claims 1 and 25, such as 'glass cladding' and 'means for positioning the waveguide during surgery.' The court decided the meanings of these terms by applying Federal Circuit precedent from Phillips v. AWH, giving words their ordinary meaning to a skilled artisan as informed by the claims, specification, and prosecution history. Core reasoning included rejecting LP's proposed limitations like physical attachment of cladding or specific positioning structures because they were not supported by the patent's text or clear disclaimers.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the United States seeking to foreclose federal tax liens on a Minnesota farm owned by the Bigalk family, claiming that the transfer of the property to K & K Limited Trust was a fraudulent conveyance and that the trust was the alter ego or nominee of Kenneth and Kathryn Bigalk. The court granted the government's motion for partial summary judgment, declaring the transfer fraudulent under the Minnesota Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and determining that K & K is the alter ego or nominee of the Bigalks. The reasoning was based on evidence that the transfer occurred without consideration around the time of tax audits and assessments, statements from family members indicating intent to avoid IRS collection, and the trust's connection to tax protestor activities. The court rejected defenses regarding homestead exemptions, estoppel, and statute of limitations due to lack of supporting evidence or contrary federal law precedence.

taxesfederal powerpropertyprocedure

The case involves a psychological services firm and its CEO suing the City of Minneapolis and its mayor after the city suspended their contract to provide fitness-for-duty and preemployment screening services to the police department, allegedly due to the CEO's past board membership in an organization promoting traditional family values and his co-authorship of a 1977 article on homosexuality. Plaintiffs asserted First Amendment retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law breach of contract claims. The court denied plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, granted defendants' motion in part, dismissed the claims against the mayor in his personal capacity on qualified immunity grounds, and dismissed the contract claims because city ordinances require written contracts approved by the city attorney and plaintiffs could not show reasonable reliance or detriment for promissory estoppel.

civil rightsfree speech

The case involves Sales Board suing Pfizer for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and state law, alleging that Pfizer used Sales Board's registered 'ACTION SELLING' mark in training materials and a sales guide for its representatives without authorization. Pfizer moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing with prejudice the claims based on a video titled 'Action Selling—Sneak Preview' hosted on a third-party website, because the complaint did not allege facts showing Pfizer's use or control of the video. The court denied the motion as to the claims based on Pfizer's internal use of the mark in employee training, finding the allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim under the applicable pleading standards.

business & regulatoryprocedure

L & S Industrial & Marine, Inc. sued the United States for a refund of fuel taxes assessed under 26 U.S.C. § 4042 for dredging operations on inland waterways under contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and sought abatement of unpaid assessments; the government counterclaimed for the unpaid taxes. The district court granted L & S's motion for summary judgment. The court held that L & S's activities did not qualify as commercial waterway transportation under the statute because they did not involve transporting property as defined in section 4042(d)(1). The decision rested on the statute's plain language, which limits the tax to specified uses, and the principle that tax statutes are construed against the government in cases of doubt.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved former AFLAC state sales coordinators who moved to vacate arbitration awards that dismissed their claims challenging the termination of their contracts, which they alleged violated an unwritten two-year rule requiring two consecutive years of missed sales targets. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the arbitrators did not refuse to hear pertinent evidence by granting summary judgment after discovery or exceed their powers in the appointment process or proceedings. The court reasoned that the Federal Arbitration Act permits vacatur only on narrow grounds, the parties had stipulated to the arbitration rules and arbitrators, and summary judgment was appropriate where no genuine issues of material fact existed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a civilly committed sex offender, Raymond L. Semler, who sued police officers Rick Koop, John A. Bolduc, and Kyle Huber, along with Erick Klang, over information provided for his sex offender risk level determination and related release notifications under Minnesota law. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review, granting the defendants' motions to dismiss, denying the plaintiff's motion for default judgment, and dismissing the entire complaint with prejudice. The core reasoning was that the claims failed to state a viable cause of action, were barred by statutes of limitations and prior state court rulings under doctrines such as Rooker-Feldman, and lacked proper procedural prerequisites like entry of default.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involves Northwest Airlines and the Air Line Pilots Association seeking a declaratory judgment that their Money Purchase Plan (MP3), a target benefit plan allocating retirement contributions to pilots based on a one-time stovepipe model of projected final average earnings, complies with ERISA section 204(b), while a class of pilots counterclaimed violations of ERISA, the ADEA, and state age discrimination laws, plus breach of the union's duty of fair representation. The district court granted the non-continued portions of the airlines' and union's motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment. The court reasoned that the MP3 does not violate ERISA's anti-backloading rules or ADEA section 4(i)(1)(B) because allocations are determined by factors including projected service ratios rather than age-based reductions, that ADEA section 4(f)(4) and section 4(i) preclude additional ADEA claims, and that ERISA preempts the state-law claims.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatorycivil rights

The case involved a former public employee suing a city and two officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for depriving him of a liberty interest without due process by failing to offer a name-clearing hearing after terminating his employment and disclosing stigmatizing accusations against him. A jury found the defendants liable and awarded $250,000 in compensatory damages plus smaller punitive awards against the individual defendants. On post-trial motions, the defendants sought judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur, arguing among other points that disclosure of the accusations under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act did not constitute the required publication element of the claim. The court recited the legal standards for these motions, emphasizing that evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and that a new trial is warranted only to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and began analyzing whether legally mandated disclosure can support liability.

civil rightsprocedurelabor & employment