280 results for 'court:"USDC Minnesota"'.
J. Tunheim grants summary judgment to the employer in the employee's suit alleging that it failed to accommodate her disability, namely narcolepsy, and retaliated against her for seeking accommodations. The employer's refusal to allow the employee to "flex" her time was not a failure to accommodate because the employee did not request the greater flexibility in start times she says she did not receive. It also did not constitute retaliation, nor do the denial of requests for training or her resignation.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tunheim, Filed On: May 26, 2023, Case #: 0:20cv1511, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, Employment, Employment Retaliation
J. Tunheim denies the insurer's motion in its declaratory-judgment case against its insured to amend his partial summary judgment order to certify it for an interlocutory appeal. There is not substantial ground for a difference of opinion on how many deductibles the insured is responsible for, and the insurer has not shown that an appeal would materially advance the termination of litigation.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tunheim, Filed On: May 26, 2023, Case #: 0:21cv2093, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, Contract
J. Menendez grants the tractor maker's motion for summary judgment in the insurer's twin suits against it alleging that defects in tractors it built without engine side shields in a "special manufacturing year" led two tractors sold to the insurer's insured to catch fire. The lack of side shields was a deliberate choice by the manufacturer, not a manufacturing flaw, nor was it a departure from the intended design despite holes in the frame used for the shields' installation in the prior regular model year. The tractors' warranties therefore are not implicated, since the insurer has not identified a defect to which they apply. The insurer's motion to exclude testimony from the tractor maker's expert is also denied.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Menendez, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: 0:21cv1200, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: Product Liability, Experts, Warranty
J. Schiltz dismisses the minor and her mother’s suit related to burns the minor sustained when a minivan in a Walmart parking lot caught fire and the fire spread to a car where the minor was sleeping. The retailer’s policy of allowing travelers to sleep in its lots does not turn its parking lots into “recreational camping areas” under a Minnesota law regulating such areas, and the minor and her mother have not shown that doing so created a nuisance or that the burns were the result of the retailer’s negligence.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Schiltz, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv1584, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Tort, Negligence, Premises Liability
J. Davis adopts a report and recommendation which recommended default judgment as a sanction against the debt collector for failing to obtain legal counsel to negotiate a settlement, but alters the report's recommended course of action to hold entry of judgment in abeyance until the case has been resolved on its merits. It is too early to determine whether the debt collector which hired the absent debt collector is jointly and severally liable for the actions of the absent party.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Davis, Filed On: May 23, 2023, Case #: 0:21cv1560, NOS: Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) - Other Suits, Categories: Debt Collection, Privacy
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Brasel grants summary judgment to the city and its officials in the landlords' suit against them alleging that a rent-stabilization ordinance passed by voters in 2021 is unconstitutional under the Minnesota and U.S. Constitutions. The ordinance does not substantially impair the landlords' leases under the contract clause and it appropriately and reasonably advances a significant and legitimate purpose, namely ensuring that residents have access to affordable housing. The landlords also have not shown that the ordinance violates the Due Process Clause, causing their Section 1983 claim to fail, and a preemption claim under state law is moot. Finally, the ordinance does not create a regulatory taking under either Constitution.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Brasel, Filed On: May 22, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv1589, NOS: Constitutionality of State Statutes - Other Suits, Categories: Constitution, Municipal Law, Housing
J. Frank partially grants the employer’s motion to dismiss the employee’s claims against it, dismissing the employee’s declaratory judgment, Fair Labor Standards Act and Minnesota Payment of Wages Act claims but not her Minnesota Whistleblower Act, breach of contract and of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment claims. The employee did not make a demand for unpaid wages prior to litigation as required under the Payment of Wages Act and has voluntarily dismissed the Fair Labor Standards Act claim, and her declaratory judgment claim is duplicative of her breach of contract claim. Her other claims are adequately pled for this stage of litigation.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: May 19, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv2971, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Whistleblowers, Employment Retaliation
J. Tostrud grants the employer’s motion for summary judgment in its employee’s suit alleging that the employer’s refusal to reinstate him to his position as a heavy-equipment field mechanic after he recovered from a work-related industry violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Affidavits the employee filed in opposition to the employer’s summary judgment may not be considered, since the witnesses who made them were available during the discovery period and reopening discovery would unduly delay resolution. In light of this, the employee’s arguments that two requirements on the position’s description are not actually required to perform the work fail, and he has thus not adequately shown that he is qualified to perform the job’s essential functions.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tostrud, Filed On: May 19, 2023, Case #: 0:21cv2575, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, Employment
J. Frank grants the employer’s motion to dismiss the employee’s Fair Labor Standards Act, declaratory judgment, good faith and fair dealing and Minnesota Payment of Wages act claims, but denies its motion with respect to her claims of retaliation under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The FLSA claim was voluntarily dismissed, the declaratory judgment claim is duplicative of the breach of contract claim, and the employee did not make a demand for unpaid wages prior to litigation as required under the Payment of Wages Act. The employee has also alleged breaches of expressed, but not implied, covenants. The unjust enrichment claim has been sufficiently pled for this stage, since findings about the scope, validity or enforceability of the employee’s employment agreement is better reserved for summary judgment, and the contract and whistleblower claims are similarly sufficiently pled, since the employee has alleged that termination without cause would breach her contract and that she was terminated following a report of forgery.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: May 19, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv2972, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Whistleblowers, Employment Retaliation
J. Foster grants the employee's motion for leave to amend her complaint to add a claim for punitive damages in her action against her former employer alleging that she was fired in response to making a protected report of state wage-theft law violations. The employee's allegations are sufficient to create a plausible inference that the employer knew of her report and acted with deliberate disregard for her right not to be terminated for it, and the report could be reasonably interpreted to have complained about the employer's alleged violation of law and so would be protected under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Foster, Filed On: May 16, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv1203, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Whistleblowers, Employment Retaliation