This case involved Darían Bartos's appeal of a bankruptcy court ruling that allowed Kelly Kloeppner to discharge in Chapter 7 bankruptcy a state court judgment requiring her to repay over $10,000 in child support and related costs that Bartos had paid for a child he later learned was not his biological child. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment to Kloeppner, holding that the debt was dischargeable. The court reasoned that the obligation did not qualify as a nondischargeable domestic support obligation under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) or (15) because Bartos was never married to Kloeppner and did not fall within the statutory categories of spouse, former spouse, or child; the award was a repayment of funds wrongfully paid rather than support in nature; and it did not arise from a separation agreement, divorce decree, or similar court order connected to marital dissolution.
The case involved plaintiff John Schedin suing brand-name drug manufacturer Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals for failure to adequately warn about the risk of tendon rupture associated with its antibiotic Levaquin, after Schedin suffered bilateral Achilles tendon ruptures following an eight-day course of the drug. A jury awarded Schedin compensatory and punitive damages on the failure-to-warn claim. Ortho-McNeil moved for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence, that it was denied a fair trial due to evidentiary rulings and closing arguments, and that the claims were preempted by federal law under the Supreme Court's recent decision in PLIVA v. Mensing. The court denied both motions, concluding that Mensing's impossibility preemption analysis does not apply to brand-name manufacturers, that the evidence supported the verdicts, and that the trial was fair.
JAZME, LLC sued Wendt Corporation for breach of contract, breach of express warranties, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent inducement stemming from a contract to purchase metal recovery equipment for processing scrap metal and automobile shredder residue. The court denied Wendt's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract and breach of express warranties claims because the contract contained ambiguous terms regarding the equipment's intended use and performance. However, the court granted summary judgment to Wendt on the unjust enrichment and fraudulent inducement claims, as the contract explicitly disclaimed any extra-contractual representations about the equipment. The court also granted summary judgment on consequential and incidental damages due to the contract's liability limitations, which were upheld under New York law after the fraud claims were dismissed.
The case involved plaintiff Leanda Muhonen, a former Cingular Wireless employee and union steward, who sued her employer Cingular and her union Local 7200 for breach of the collective bargaining agreement and breach of the union's duty of fair representation. Muhonen alleged that Cingular discriminated against her based on disability and failed to address safety concerns related to coworker incidents, and that the union failed to properly file grievances on her behalf regarding discipline and termination. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. It reasoned that Muhonen's claims were time-barred because they were filed more than six months after she knew or should have known that no grievance had been filed, and that the union's conduct was not shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith; as a result, both the hybrid claims against the union and the dependent claims against the employer failed.
The case concerned a consent decree between the United States and Sybaritic, Inc. and related defendants that barred domestic sales of certain aesthetic and fitness devices until FDA compliance and permitted exports only if they met the requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 381(e). After an inspection, the FDA issued a cessation order halting further exports of seven listed devices and assessing liquidated damages for violations of the decree. Defendants moved to vacate the order or, alternatively, to modify or dissolve the consent decree. The court reviewed the FDA action under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and found the agency's decision supported by the record of noncompliance; it further held that defendants had not demonstrated a change in facts or law, a grievous wrong, or exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify relief from the decree under Rule 60(b). The court therefore denied the motion in its entirety.
The case involved a lawsuit by Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc., a for-profit youth hockey program, against Minnesota Hockey, Inc., its District 6 division, director Brad Hewitt, and local associations. The plaintiff challenged a 2010 rule adopted by District 6 that prohibited players from participating in outside leagues during the winter season, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws along with tortious interference with contracts and business. The court denied the motion to dismiss the antitrust claims against Minnesota Hockey, District 6, and Hewitt, finding sufficient facts pleaded to support allegations of anticompetitive conduct. It dismissed the conspiracy claims against all defendants because they functioned as a single unilateral actor under the Amateur Sports Act structure, and it dismissed all claims against the local associations due to insufficient factual allegations of their involvement beyond informing players of the rule.
