Veteran Minnesota Litigator readers will know of the Battle of the Bubbly which has been fought out before U.S. District Court Judge Joan Ericksen (D. Minn.) over the past year or so.   The fight was between Louis Roederer, seller of the high end “Cristal” brand of champagne (nearly $200/bottle), and J. Garcia Carrion’s Cristalino (under $10/bottle).

This week the Court’s issued an order making clear that Cristal’s pretty much won the day.  Cristalino, henceforth, must go by the name “Jaume Serra Cristalino” and must bear a “prominent” disclaimer disavowing any connection to Roederer or Cristal.

At the risk of alienating Minnesota Litigator readers with one of dullest posts ever, a published Minnesota Court of Appeals decision has come down this week on the interplay between Article III of the Uniform Commercial Code, on the one hand, “principles of law and equity” on the other hand, and determining when the former “displaces” the latter.  The issue may be dull until the distinction means the difference between recovering money on a promissory note and recovering nothing.  Then maybe it gets interesting… Read the rest of this entry »

[UPDATE:  In response to the hedge funds' motion for sanctions, Compucredit has come out swinging and, you guessed it, asked the Court to sanction the hedge funds for seeking sanctions.  Compucredit's brief weighs in at 52 pages.  It is highly fact-specific/case-specific and, on that basis, probably not of broad usefulness to Minnesota civil litigators.  On the other hand, for any who have been following the saga of this litigation, it is a worthwhile read.]

The battle between Compucredit and many investors in Compucredit notes, which erupted in late 2010 before U.S. District Court Judge John R. Tunheim has generated more than its fair share of Minnesota Litigator coverage and the war shows no sign of abating.

Most recently, Compucredit filed a brief in response to defendants’ motion to dismiss.

In addition to being of interest to antitrust litigators, the exchange in the papers with regard to the admissibility of statements made in the context of settlement negotiations may be of interest more broadly to civil litigators.   The potentially enormous evidentiary value of admissions made in the context of settlement and a policy of according such admissions a privileged status making them immune from use as evidence is an obvious tension that may defy simply applied per se rules. Read the rest of this entry »

We are unlikely to see the likes of Tom Petters’ Minnesota-based massive multi-billion dollar fraud again any time soon but Minnesota’s still getting some coverage for alleged frauds, if on a smaller scale.  CNN’s coverage today of Trevor Cook’s relatively paltry $190 million alleged scam is here.

Alleged co-conspirator, Pat Kiley’s, pro se complaint, referenced in the CNN piece is here.

[UPDATE: Remanded.  BNSF charged with fees for the improper removal.  U.S. Dist. Judge Michael J. Davis, C.J., here.]

David and Judy Brost tragically died when their car, driven by David Brost, was hit by a BNSF train two years ago.  Trustee/Next-of-Kin for Judy Brost brought a wrongful death action in state court, naming the BNSF railroad and the estate of David Brost as defendants.

BNSF removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction — normally unavailable when any one plaintiff and any one defendant are “non-diverse,” that is, are from the same state, which was the case here.  BNSF, however, removed Brost’s case to federal court saying that David Brost was “fraudulently joined” to defeat diversity jurisdiction.   Read the rest of this entry »

Back in April, Minnesota Litigator reported a Court of Appeals decision that termination based on the fact that one terminated an employee’s spouse violated Minnesota law prohibiting employment discrimination based on marital status.  This week, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s petition for review.

Civil litigation in the context of mergers, acquisitions, tender offers and the like is a breed unto itself, where stakes can be high, deadlines can be imminent and decisive, strategies can be complex, impenetrable, or protean.

So it can be that a plaintiff files a lawsuit it never truly wished to file and a defendant may resist dismissal of plaintiff’s lawsuit, because, the dust having settled, there’s some angle, some potential for payback, some unfinished business before the parties go their separate ways.  (Or, to put it another way, sometimes “heat of the moment” litigation backfires as the aggressor becomes the defender and vice-versa.  (Cf. Compucredit.)) Read the rest of this entry »

As discussed back on Minnesota Litigator in December, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court had to decide a case pitting an arguably negligent secured lender against a wholly undeserving entity whose loan should have been junior in priority, but for a delay in recording the earlier mortgage loan.  Over dissents by Justices Page and Anderson (Paul), the Supreme Court ruled against “the negligent.” As the dissent put it:

The court’s decision rests on the notion that ‘equity aids the vigilant, and not the negligent,’ and therefore Citizens’ failure to act for 38 days in resubmitting the mortgage registration tax does not warrant equitable subrogation.  However, in our over-century-long application of equitable subrogation we have faced far more egregious conduct and have never found a mistake so unjustifiable or so inexcusable that equitable subrogation should not apply….

Over one year ago, Dakota Pasta Growers brought suit against Thiele, arguing that the for VT-600 Continuous Motion Vertical Cartoner that Dakota Pasta Growers bought for $549,327 in October, 2005 could not meet the express warranty of boxing 300 cartons of pasta per minute.  From the complaint, it would appear that Thiele worked for some time with DPG before DPG gave up and sued.  Read the rest of this entry »

When a 380,000 lb. diesel-powered blasthole production drill used in mining operations tips over and kills the operator, civil litigation and strong regulatory responses are near certainties.  This is the factual background of Driscoll v. Standard Hardware and Atlas Copco Drilling Solutions v. United Taconite, decided this week by Judges Toussaint, Hudson, and Willis (retired appellate judge serving by appointment pursuant to Minn.  Const.  Art. VI, § 10) in an opinion by Judge Hudson. Read the rest of this entry »

The State of Minnesota, joined by Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to try to stop the spread of Asian Carp into the Great Lakes.  They bring claims for (1) public nuisance, and (2) “judicial review of unlawful agency action.”  The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. (N.D. Illinois).

[UPDATE:  Originally commented on in early June in light of the apparent secrecy of the case, this case was "all sealed up" but now somewhat less so in light of last week's order by U.S. Mag. Judge Janie Mayeron (D. Minn.).  Plaintiff has now filed redacted unsealed pleadings here.   Defendants and third-party defendants' "Joint and Several Answer" is here.  The allegations, in a nutshell, are that Afremov counsel in underlying litigation encouraged Afremov to amend his tax returns to help the strategy in the underlying litigation but the allegedly recommended amendments also appear to have resulted in Afremov's criminal liability for tax evasion (to which he pled guilty).  Afremov alleges that his lawyers in the underlying action spearheaded this rather risky strategy; they, in turn, appear to take the position that the confessed tax evader tricked them and that he was not misled (or badly advised) by them.]

Michael Afremov has been in litigation for several years now related to AGA Medical, in which he was one of three founding shareholders and directors.

As can happen over time in hotly disputed litigation, advocates have morphed into parties as Afremov (now represented by Geoff Jarpe and others at Winthrop & Weinstine) has turned his sights on his former lawyers at the New England firm of Sulloway & Hollis, which, in turn, has recently dragged in former Minnesota counsel for Afremov, the Maslon firm.

But unfortunately for the media or those interested in news and developments in Minnesota civil litigation, until recently, the current litigation pending in U.S. District Court before U.S. District Court Judge Patrick Schiltz and Mag. Judge Janie Mayeron  had been all sealed up.  What gets sealed? What does not?  Why was this case?  The Federal Judicial Center issued a study on the subject in 2009.