Oral promises are, by their nature, fleeting and unreliable. This is apparently even more true when the promise is about manure.
In Maday v. Grathwohl, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a written “Manure Easement” superseded a prior oral promise to deliver all manure to a neighboring farm. As a result, the neighboring farm that wants more manure is, quite literally, SOL.
Less than two years ago, the United States Supreme Court limited the availability of arbitrations in class action cases when it decided that a party may not be compelled under the Federal Arbitration Act to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so. Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S.Ct. 1758 (2010). Two weeks ago, in a case featuring Twin Cities FLSA heavyweights Nichols, Kaster and Dorsey and Whitney, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Michael Davis (D. Minn.) has added some nuance to that general rule in his decision in Mork v. Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc., (No. 11-2069, January 9, 2012).
There are websites dedicated to a single legal matter (like the one here). Minnesota Litigator, while indisputably a “niche” blog, is not quite so narrow as that.
On the other hand, there is a single case that seems to draw Minnesota Litigator again and again, nick-named: OUROBOROS (the name of the ancient symbol of the circular self-devouring snake). Continue reading
UBS Financial Services, Inc. filed a lawsuit this week in U.S. federal court against Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie, P.A. claiming that, contrary to applicable ethical standards of professional conduct, AOBL, having represented USBFS is now suing USBFS in a “substantially related” case. USBFS seeks an injunction against AOBL knocking them out of the later case.
The key, of course, is “what is ‘substantially related’”? Faegre Baker Daniels, counsel for USBFS (along with a Long Beach, CA firm), takes the position that the apparent key role of one USBFS employee in the former case and in the latter case, among other overlaps, make the two cases sufficiently “substantially related” to require AOBL’s disqualification (See Complaint, Paras. 23, 28-34.)
The case has been assigned to one U.S. District Court Judge Patrick J. Schiltz (D. Minn.) and, by chance, the earlier USBFS case was before the same judge.
Minn. Stat. 544.42, Subd. 2, the Minnesota professional malpractice statute provides:
In an action against a professional alleging negligence or malpractice in rendering a professional service where expert testimony is to be used by a party to establish a prima facie case, the party must….
After that ellipse (the “…”), the statute goes on to require (in statute-speak jargon) certain sworn affidavits to be submitted in the case and, if the expert affidavits are not forthcoming, the case is dismissed. It is dead. Continue reading
Arriving in a cheap hotel at the edge of a cold desolate western town late at night, an experienced railroad defense lawyer found herself checking in next to her adversary, the lawyer for an injured railroad worker.
Such lawyers criss-cross the country, inspecting gruesome accident sites, deposing accident victims, witnesses, doctors, family members, and so on. These lawyers are cogs in a system designed to transform (or, when appropriate, to reject the proposed transformation of) personal injuries into money as fairly and efficiently as possible.
“Where you coming from?” one might say to the other. ”Spokane. Arm-off,” the other might reply. By their professional roles, they are desensitized. A catastrophic event in some person’s life is summed up in this succinct, if insensitive, professional jargon. Continue reading
On VentureBeat, Minnesota Litigator noted the survey/ad below today from Twin Cities powerhouse law firm (and alma mater) Dorsey & Whitney LLP. The page also had an ad for Greenberg Traurig. Seems like a new rain-making strategy.
Notwithstanding that the citation of foreign sources is deemed by some to be controversial, Case Management Master D.E. Short of the Superior Court of Justice – Ontario has gone out on a limb and honored Minnesota Litigator with a mention at p.7 of the linked opinion, citing Minnesota Litigator’s discussion last October of the adage, “a bad settlement is better than a good trial.”
Citation in a Canadian judicial decision! One more thing to check off my bucket list!
But all hope is not lost for a Jordan (“Pro for the Protester“) Kushner constitutional law repeat victory as the Minnesota Supreme Court will hear argument in “the trocar-wielding student case” (see original post after the jump regarding scary Facebook posts that resulted in punishment by the University of Minnesota) on February 8 in reviewing the Court of Appeals case that went against Amanda Tatro, Kushner’s client. The issues:
(1) whether the University of Minnesota violated Tatro’s constitutional rights to free speech by imposing disciplinary sanctions for her Facebook posts; (2) whether the University had the authority to conduct a disciplinary hearing and impose sanctions that included changing a passing grade to a failing grade; and (3) whether the University presented sufficient evidence to support a determination that Tatro committed disciplinary offenses. (University of Minnesota Office for Student Conduct & Academic Integrity)
This was a case where the declaratory judgment plaintiff won before U.S. District Court Judge Ann D. Montogomery (D. Minn.) but its request for award of attorneys’ fees was postponed. Now the landlord can tack on $45,000+ onto its tenant’s rent, owed due to AMC Showplace Theatre’s litigation loss. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed Judge Montgomery’s ruling in favor of Block E landlord, Camelot. (StarTribune coverage is here.)
Pharmaceutical and medical device companies are in business to make money by providing medicine, treatments, or devices that promote health, of course. It would take a profound cynicism on the one hand (if one were to argue they do not wish to promote health) or profound idealism on the other hand (if one were to argue they do not care about making money) to quibble with that basic proposition.
But then how “safe” do their products have to be so they can avoid being demonized as venal, callous, and subject to punitive damages, because sometimes their products might not always work and they may even sometimes cause harm or illness? Continue reading
Jarndyce and Jarndyce, as retired U.S. District Court Judge James M. Rosenbaum (D. Minn.) once cautioned me at an initial appearance in his chambers, was the fictional court case described in Dickens’ novel “Bleak House” that has become synonymous with interminable litigation. Within the world of single-plaintiff employment cases, the matter of Leticia Zuniga Escamilla v. SMS Holdings Corp., Service Mgmt Sys. Inc., and Marco Gonzalez venued in Federal District Court here in Minneapolis may be achieving such notoriety.