Ann D. Montgomery

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.

business & regulatory

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

criminal lawcivil rightsfree speech

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employment

This case is a patent infringement action in which Geospan Corporation alleged that Pictometry International Corporation infringed claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 5,633,946, a patent describing a method for collecting video and spatial data via multiple non-coplanar cameras on a moving platform to create geographic databases for photogrammetry applications. Pictometry denied infringement and sought declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability. Following a Markman hearing, the court construed the disputed terms "moving platform" and "video camera," holding that "moving platform" means any movable structure supporting the cameras without limitation to ground-based vehicles and that "video camera" carries its plain and ordinary meaning without restriction to analog technology. The court based these constructions on intrinsic evidence from the claims, specification, and prosecution history, finding no clear disavowal of broader scope by the inventors.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a collective action by current and former network technicians against Qwest Communications entities alleging unpaid overtime under the FLSA and Minnesota FLSA, based on off-the-clock work required to meet the company's Quality Jobs per Day performance metric and out-of-garage rule. The court denied Qwest's Rule 56(d) motion and granted its summary judgment motion in part by dismissing two corporate defendants and all state-law claims, while denying summary judgment on the FLSA claims against the remaining defendant. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs' testimony and questionnaire responses created genuine issues of material fact on whether Qwest had actual or constructive knowledge of the off-the-clock work, and that such evidence was sufficient to withstand summary judgment without additional corroboration.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a proposed class action by former Target Executive Team Leaders alleging that Target misclassified their positions as exempt from overtime under the FLSA and related state laws. Target moved to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel, the Halunen firm, on grounds that the firm received attorney-client privileged information from a former Target senior manager and psychologist (referred to as Doe) during consultations about her own potential claims against Target. The court granted the motion to disqualify the Halunen firm, finding that the firm's interactions with Doe created an unacceptable risk of using or being exposed to privileged communications, but denied the request to dismiss the lawsuit entirely. The decision was based on the nature of Doe's role at Target, the timing and content of her disclosures to the firm, and the firm's failure to adequately screen or avoid privileged material despite some precautions.

labor & employmentprocedure

This multidistrict antitrust case involves retail grocery stores alleging that wholesale grocers SuperValu and C&S violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act through an Asset Exchange Agreement that allocated Midwest and New England markets and customers via reciprocal non-compete provisions, following C&S's acquisition of Fleming Companies' operations. Plaintiffs claim the agreement was a sham transaction lacking legitimate business purpose that enabled supra-competitive pricing. The court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), finding the complaint plausibly alleged an antitrust violation with sufficient facts under Twombly. It also denied Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, determining genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the agreement's purpose, the application of the continuing violations doctrine to the statute of limitations, and whether affirmative acts concealed the conduct.

business & regulatory

In this case, truck driver Norman Seegert sued his employer, Monson Trucking, after being terminated following a request for leave to enter inpatient treatment for alcoholism. Seegert alleged violations of the ADA, FMLA, MHRA, and a promissory estoppel claim based on statements from a personnel employee that his absence would not jeopardize his job. The court denied Monson's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact on multiple elements, including whether Seegert qualified as disabled, whether his leave was covered by the FMLA, whether he made misrepresentations on DOT medical certification forms regarding his substance abuse history, and whether a clear promise was made that he reasonably relied upon to his detriment.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case centered on Fair Isaac's claims against Experian, Trans Union, and VantageScore for trademark infringement of its '300-850' credit score marks, along with related claims of unfair competition and false advertising, after earlier summary judgment dismissals of antitrust, contract, and other claims. A jury found that the descriptive marks had not acquired secondary meaning and ruled for defendants on a counterclaim of fraud on the PTO, while the court separately rejected Fair Isaac's equitable claims. In post-trial motions, the court denied Fair Isaac's requests for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, granted defendants' motion to cancel the trademark registration, denied attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act, and partially granted fees on the contract claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case arose from a contest for corporate control in which Tiberius Capital II, LLC launched an unsuccessful tender offer for shares of MathStar, Inc., after which Tiberius asserted counterclaims against MathStar, its investment advisor Feltl & Company, and rival suitor Sajan alleging violations of federal securities laws as well as state-law claims including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference. Anticipating those claims, the MathStar plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaratory relief, and the court addressed motions to dismiss the amended counterclaim. The U.S. District Court granted the motions and dismissed all eleven counts, holding that the securities claims lacked the particularity required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, that no material misrepresentations or omissions were adequately alleged, and that the state-law tort claims failed to plead wrongful conduct or the other required elements.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves a dispute between the City of Duluth and the Fond du Lac Band over a series of agreements from the 1980s and 1994 concerning the operation and revenue sharing of the Fond du Luth Casino in downtown Duluth. The City sued for breach of contract, seeking a declaration that the agreements are valid and enforceable along with damages and injunctive relief. The Band counterclaimed that the agreements were unenforceable as illegal under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), unconscionable, lacking consideration, or based on mutual mistake. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment in part, finding the agreements valid and enforceable because they had been reviewed and approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) as compliant with IGRA's sole proprietary interest requirement, and denied it in part as to the amount of future damages, which required further arbitration under the contract terms.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a pro se prisoner serving a life sentence who sued Minnesota prison officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, alleging that his reassignment from one production line to another in the prison's MINNCOR work program, along with related disciplinary proceedings, violated his First Amendment rights against retaliation, Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, and Eighth Amendment protections. The plaintiff sought damages, declaratory relief, and expungement of the incident from his records. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion, concluding that the plaintiff failed to show any protected speech, any meeting of the minds for conspiracy, any deliberate indifference to a serious risk, or any violation of due process in the handling of his job assignment and discipline. The core reasoning rested on the lack of evidence supporting constitutional violations or actionable claims under the cited statutes, with qualified immunity also noted as an alternative ground.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

This case involves a retired physician who participated in a deferred compensation plan with his former medical practice group; after the group merged with another entity and ceased operations, payments under the plan stopped, prompting the plaintiff to sue the former officers for allegedly depleting assets by making preferential payments to themselves. The plaintiff asserted multiple ERISA claims for breach of fiduciary duty along with a state-law claim for breach of corporate fiduciary duties. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing certain ERISA claims to proceed while dismissing the state-law claim. The core reasoning was that the state-law claim was preempted by ERISA because it related to the employee benefit plan, whereas the ERISA fiduciary claims were not subject to dismissal at this stage under the applicable pleading standards.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Charles Degnan's challenge to the Secretary of Health and Human Services' calculation of his monthly Medicare Part B premiums beginning in 2004. The district court reviewed objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation on cross-motions for summary judgment, which addressed the proper interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 1395r regarding base premiums under subsection (a)(3) and any increases under subsection (b). The court overruled the objections, adopted the report and recommendation, and held that the statute's language is clear, requiring the premium to be set at 50 percent of the actuarial rate with specific adjustments, without support for the agency's contrary reading that treated premium and penalty distinctions differently. The core reasoning was that plain statutory text must be enforced as written, ending the inquiry without deference to the agency under Chevron when the language is unambiguous.

healthcarefederal power

This case is an appeal by Ritchie entities from a bankruptcy court order that overruled their objection to the U.S. Trustee's appointment of Douglas Kelley as Chapter 11 trustee for the Petters Debtors, which had filed for bankruptcy after being placed in receivership amid allegations of a large-scale Ponzi scheme. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, rejecting Ritchie's claims that Kelley's dual role as receiver in related civil proceedings and as trustee created disqualifying conflicts of interest, including between the receiver and trustee positions or among the debtor entities. The court held that the roles are compatible, that bankruptcy court oversight of administrative actions provides sufficient safeguards against any potential bias, and that Kelley's receiver status continues without terminating upon the bankruptcy filings or violating the requirement of disinterestedness under the Bankruptcy Code.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned an insurance coverage dispute in which developer SVK and its insurer West Bend sought contribution from CNA Insurers (Valley Forge and Transportation) for defense costs and a $1.49 million settlement paid to resolve a homeowners association suit alleging water infiltration and related property damage from defective construction of townhomes. The underlying claims involved alleged defects in windows, flashing, stucco, grading, and building code violations that caused ongoing damage beginning during the construction period. The district court granted the CNA Insurers' motions for summary judgment on both the attorney-fee and indemnification claims while denying the plaintiffs' cross-motion, concluding that the CNA policies did not obligate the insurers to pay the requested amounts. The court's analysis focused on the policy requirement that property damage occur during the policy period, the definition of an "occurrence," and the allocation of damages across multiple policy years.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a defaulted lease agreement for medical equipment between Creekridge Capital, a Minnesota lessor, and several corporate lessees along with individual doctor guarantors. Creekridge sued in Minnesota state court for unpaid lease amounts after the hospital construction project defaulted, and defendants removed the case to federal court. The court granted defendants' motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Louisiana and denied Creekridge's motion for summary judgment. The ruling rested on the action being "related to" one defendant's involuntary bankruptcy case in Louisiana under the conceivable effect test, making transfer appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) or 1412 due to the location of parties, witnesses, assets, and the interests of justice.

procedurebusiness & regulatory