In Teng Moua v. Jani-King of Minnesota, Inc., three individuals who purchased Jani-King cleaning franchises sued the franchisor and a regional director, alleging breach of contract, fraud, violations of the Minnesota Franchise Act and False Statement in Advertisement Act, and related claims. The disputes centered on whether Jani-King fulfilled its Initial Business Obligation to offer accounts meeting promised monthly billing amounts, made misleading oral earnings guarantees, and properly disclosed how the obligation was calculated and limited to the Twin Cities territory. The district court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part, dismissing with prejudice nearly all claims by plaintiffs Yang, Dominguez, and George. The court reasoned that the written Franchise Agreement and UFOC controlled, expressly disclaiming oral earnings promises, defining the obligation as one to “offer” rather than guarantee accepted accounts, and starting the limitations period for statutory claims at purchase; only two narrow issues—Dominguez’s contract claim on one account exchange and George’s fraud-by-omission claim on IBO disclosure—presented triable factual disputes.
This case involves multiple related lawsuits arising from a 2006 car accident in which a 1996 Toyota Camry allegedly experienced sudden unintended acceleration, causing a collision that killed three people and severely injured others. The driver, Koua Fong Lee, was initially convicted of criminal vehicular homicide but had his convictions vacated after post-conviction proceedings revealed evidence of a possible product defect. Plaintiffs, including accident victims' families, insurers, and intervenors, sued the Toyota Defendants for claims related to the vehicle's design, manufacture, and failure to disclose known defects. The court granted the plaintiffs' motions to amend their complaints to address deficiencies and denied the Toyota Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), except granting them in part against the Plaintiff-Intervenors, applying the same standards as a motion to dismiss and finding the proposed amendments not futile.
Mary Harnan sued her employer, the University of St. Thomas, alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act after taking medical leave for surgery and headaches, the Minnesota Human Rights Act for alleged sex discrimination by her supervisor, and the Minnesota Whistleblower Act for reporting requests to work off the clock and other regulatory violations. The district court granted the university's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, dismissing the FMLA, MHRA, and MWA claims with prejudice. The court reasoned that Harnan failed to show she was eligible for or entitled to FMLA benefits, could not establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination or that the university's performance-based reasons for termination were pretextual, and did not engage in protected whistleblowing activity that sought to vindicate public rights rather than her own interests, with insufficient evidence of retaliatory motive.
The case involved real estate developer Paul Stepnes, who created a paid-entry guessing contest to win a foreclosed house he built, leading to his arrest by Minneapolis police for illegal gambling and a related news broadcast by CBS. Stepnes sued the city and officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for claims including false arrest, illegal search, and conspiracy, and sued CBS for defamation based on the broadcast's portrayal of the contest and arrest. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants and denied Stepnes's partial summary judgment motion. It reasoned that the contest constituted illegal gambling under Minnesota law due to the element of chance, providing probable cause for the arrest and search with no constitutional violations. For the defamation claim, Stepnes qualified as a limited-purpose public figure who failed to show actual malice by the media defendants.
The case involved the Secretary of Labor suing Susan and Joel Blackford, former owners of Copy Cat Business Systems, for failing to properly remit employee contributions to the company's pension plan as required by ERISA. The court granted the Secretary's motion for summary judgment, holding both defendants liable as plan fiduciaries for violating ERISA provisions by commingling and misusing the contributions. The core reasoning was that Susan Blackford, as plan administrator, and Joel Blackford, as company president with authority over the plan, both exercised fiduciary control, admitted the improper handling of approximately $13,000 in contributions, and were therefore jointly responsible for repaying the plan's losses including interest.
In this case, current and former investigators employed by Veracity Research Co., an insurance defense investigation firm, brought a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act claiming they were misclassified as exempt employees and denied overtime compensation for hours worked over forty per week. The investigators performed surveillance, background checks, interviews, and related tasks, and Veracity had classified them as exempt based on an industry standard view of their duties. On cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the court granted and denied portions of each party's motion regarding whether specific duties or exemptions applied, such as the administrative or motor carrier exemptions. The court also denied Veracity's motion to decertify the collective action, finding sufficient commonality among the plaintiffs' claims despite variations in exact roles across surveillance, claims, and senior field investigator levels.
