24 results for 'judge:"Frank"'.
J. Frank denies the guarantor's motion to dismiss the lender's suit against him for forum non conveniens or a stay pending resolution of another action in California. The parties' agreement includes a valid forum-selection clause, and it is unclear whether the financing involved in the California case are related to the loan at issue here. Public-interest factors have not been shown to sufficiently support dismissal, and it is unlikely that the California action will dispose of any of this case's issues.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: 0:23cv2244, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Venue, Contract
J. Frank grants the knee implant makers' motions to exclude expert testimony and for summary judgment in the implant recipient's suit alleging that her knee replacement loosened after implantation. The expert's opinion that the particular implant used is especially prone to debonding exhibits "several red flags" regarding her methodology, and at the time of implantation, no knee devices were on the market with the features the expert cites as necessary to prevent debonding. Since the implant recipient's claims regarding the device rely on the now-excluded expert testimony, those claims cannot survive summary judgment.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: March 26, 2024, Case #: 0:22cv331, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Product Liability, Experts
J. Frank partially grants the minority shareholders' motion for a temporary restraining order. The majority shareholders are restrained from terminating one minority shareholder's executive employment agreement, expanding their company's board of directors, appointing a friendly consultant to the board or assigning responsibility for financial, corporate and legal decisions to one of the minority shareholders. The minority shareholders are likely to succeed in proving that the majority shareholders have breached a Stock Transfer Agreement and on their declaratory judgment claim. Public interest and balance-of-equities factors also favor granting the temporary restraining order.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: March 22, 2024, Case #: 0:24cv524, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Corporations, Restraining Order, Contract
J. Frank grants the city and police officers' motion for summary judgment in the mother's wrongful death suit stemming from the locally high-profile police killing of her autistic son, Kobe Dimock-Heisler. The police officers are entitled to qualified immunity, since they had probable cause to believe that the son, carrying a knife, posed an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to others when they shot him.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: 0:22cv2124, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Immunity, Police Misconduct
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. Frank partially grants the former employees' and their new employer's motion to dismiss the former employer's suit alleging breach of confidentiality, invention and non-compete agreements, breach of the duty of loyalty and unfair competition, and partially grants the former employer's motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order requiring compliance with the agreements. The employees have failed to establish that the former employer's claims are worth less than $75,000, so the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint, but the former employer has not shown that the new employer is closely related to the disputes or that it has sufficient contacts with Minnesota for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it. A claim against it is dismissed. The employees are prohibited, however, from working with seven dealers they worked with under the former employer and are ordered to abide by non-compete agreements, and one employee is required to certify that he has permanently deleted a spreadsheet or spreadsheets he sent to his personal email.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: 0:23cv3873, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Employment, Contract
J. Frank denies the securities intermediaries' motion to dismiss the death benefit proceed claimants' suit seeking the proceeds of alleged stranger-originated life insurance policies for lack of standing. Insureds' estates may pursue claims to recover proceeds from policies alleged to have been wagers on their decedents' lives.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: January 9, 2024, Case #: 0:23cv45, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Fraud, Insurance
J. Frank largely dismisses the arrested man's claims against the city, county and law enforcement officers stemming from his misidentification by the county's facial recognition software and subsequent arrest for a robbery in which he was not involved. A county policy prohibited the use of facial recognition software for positive identification, so the city and county cannot be held liable for the officers' alleged breach of that policy. The arrested man has also not identified other incidents to demonstrate that breaches of that policy were customary, nor that the municipalities failed to train law enforcement on the correct use of the software. A civil conspiracy claim and claims under the Minnesota Constitution fail for similar reasons, but a false arrest tort claim survives, since fact issues remain as to who determined that the arrested man was involved in the robbery, and therefore the county cannot claim vicarious immunity at this time.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: December 4, 2023, Case #: 0:23cv1984, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Technology
J. Frank grants the employer's motion for summary judgment in the employee's suit alleging that his termination was racially discriminatory, and denies a request to file four exhibits submitted at a summary judgment hearing. The employee's claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act are time-barred, he has not exhausted his administrative remedies for his retaliation claims, and he has not demonstrated a causal link between alleged racially derogatory statements by supervisors, patients and coworkers and his termination. The employer, meanwhile, has provided a non-discriminatory reason for his firing, namely a significant number of complaints from other staff and from patients in the two years before his termination. He also has not demonstrated that his work environment was objectively hostile.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: October 31, 2023, Case #: 0:21cv1407, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Employment Discrimination
J. Frank grants the sheriff's motion to dismiss the Agence France-Presse journalists' claims against him in his individual capacity in a civil rights action arising after they were allegedly harassed and physically assaulted by officers while covering protests following the police shooting of Daunte Wright. The journalists claim they were pepper sprayed and threatened with arrest for filming. The journalists failed to sufficiently allege that the sheriff ordered any of the officers to take the alleged unconstitutional actions or that the sheriff was deliberately indifferent to a pattern of misconduct.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: September 27, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv3009, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Police Misconduct
J. Frank rules in favor of the manufacturer in a trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract action brought by the company alleging that the manufacturer used the company's proprietary designs and information to develop and design two cell-culture products. The evidence at trial showed that the manufacturer's inventors designed and developed the products independently, without using any of the company's confidential information. The design of the manufacturer's products is fundamentally different from the company's concepts. The company's state law claims are untimely and its eight-year delay in bringing the action against the manufacturer was unreasonable. The delay caused a loss of documentary evidence, including emails, documents and recordings, that prejudiced the manufacturer.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: September 25, 2023, Case #: 0:13cv210, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Patent, Trade Secrets, Contract
J. Frank denies the employer's motion to compel arbitration or to stay proceedings in the employee's suit alleging that it failed to address sexual harassment that ultimately escalated to a sexual assault by a coworker, and terminated her after she reported the assault. The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 applies to the employee's claims, since it concerns "a dispute involving a nonconsensual act or sexual conduct," namely the employee's suit against the employer in state court.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: 0:23cv1127, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Employment Discrimination
J. Frank denies the models' motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in this declaratory-judgment suit brought by the strip club owner's insurer, and partially grants the club owner's motion to dismiss, compel arbitration and stay proceedings. The action is referred to arbitration, since while the models lack standing to compel arbitration, the club owner does not, and while disputes remain as to which claims are arbitrable, those questions are better left to the arbitrator.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: July 31, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv3214, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Arbitration, Insurance
J. Frank partially grants the civilian's motion for attorney fees following her success at trial on claims against the government entities and their employees alleging that they impermissibly accessed her driver's license data. While the civilian's legal errors necessitated a new trial, the issues presented at trial were close calls and her behavior was not unreasonable. She was overall successful on the claim at the heart of her case, the case furthered public interest, and an earlier reduction of attorney fees stands. Time and resources spent on an appeal and trial preparation, however, were excessive and fees are reduced by 60 percent accordingly.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: July 27, 2023, Case #: 0:13cv3562, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Attorney Fees
J. Frank grants the bank's motion to dismiss the consumer's amended complaint alleging several violations of law related to collection and reporting of an alleged debt, along with an Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The ADA allegations are not related to those against the bank, the consumer has not alleged that the bank knew or should have known it had furnished the consumer with fraudulent information, the parties' contract need not include permission to engage debt collectors to make their engagement permissible, the bank is not a debt collector, and the consumer has not adequately alleged a factual inaccuracy in the bank's reporting of debts.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: July 17, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv2421, NOS: Consumer Credit - Other Suits, Categories: Debt Collection, Fraud, Consumer Law
J. Frank grants the employer's motion for summary judgment in the employee's suit alleging that it failed to promote him and retaliated against him for reporting racial discrimination. The employee has not adequately alleged that a change in title was a demotion and therefore an adverse employment action, nor has he demonstrated that the employer's stated reason for denying him promotion was pretextual. He also has not raised a genuine fact issue regarding whether the circumstances of his termination warrant an inference of discrimination.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: July 14, 2023, Case #: 0:21cv1845, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Retaliation
J. Frank denies the burglary victim's motion for relief from judgment in a case brought by a former friend the victim accused of committing the burglary, even after the arrest of burglary suspects. The friend's defamation claim and the court's finding of actual malice are supported by the record, whether or not the burglary victim's statements involved a matter of public concern. The friend's motion for sanctions, however, is denied since the burglary victim's arguments for relief from judgment were not frivolous and the Court cannot find that he or his counsel knew or should have known that one of his declarations contained erroneous information.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: June 27, 2023, Case #: 0:20cv565, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Sanctions, Defamation
J. Frank denies a motion to amend the case caption to substitute two named plaintiffs with a single plaintiff and makes rulings on a number of motions in limine. The Court will instruct the jury that the bed maker's "Sleep Number" mark is "strong and famous" and deem any evidence contesting that contention presumptively inadmissible. The bedmaker's competitors are not, however, precluded from contesting actual confusion or excluded from conducting a bed demonstration. Evidence of antitrust claims from a prior trial or of allegations of anti-competitive conduct is also presumptively inadmissible, as is evidence of any other litigation of enforcement actions. Evidence of cease-and-desist letters is presumptively admissible, but evidence regarding whether the bedmaker has trademark rights in the phrase "Number Bed" is not.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: June 16, 2023, Case #: 0:12cv2899, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Evidence, Trademark
J. Frank grants final approval of a settlement between the Commissioner of Human Services and recipients of Home and Community-Based Disability Waivers in the recipients' suit alleging that the Department of Human Services failed to inform recipients of their options with the waivers and improperly allowed local agencies broad discretion as to whether or not to provide individualized housing services. The settlement, which provides for education and training for those involved in the waiver program, assessments with current waiver-holders to determine whether they desire to move to individual housing, provision of services to address barriers preventing them from moving and measurement of outcomes, was properly negotiated at arm's length by adequate class representatives and counsel. Objections about the agreement's failure to ensure access to direct care services are outside the scope of this suit, which is focused on housing, and objections regarding insufficient notice and the scope of the class are also overruled.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: June 15, 2023, Case #: 0:16cv2623, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities - Other - Civil Rights, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, Settlements, Class Action
J. Frank grants summary judgment to the public entities in the contractors' suit alleging that agreements between those entities and a local labor organization violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The last remaining employee challenging the agreements alongside the contractors lacks standing, as do the contractors. A competing labor association also lacks standing. Regardless, their constitutional arguments fail because the Supreme Court's Janus decision applies only to public-sector employees.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: June 14, 2023, Case #: 0:21cv227, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Constitution
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. 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. Frank denies the patent defendants' requests for permission to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's constructions of several terms in two of the patent claimant's patents, along with their motions for certification of the issue for an interlocutory appeal and for leave to file a reply in support of their motion for such an appeal. The patent defendants have not demonstrated "compelling circumstances" to justify reconsideration, and an immediate appeal is not warranted on the questions raised by the patent defendants.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: May 8, 2023, Case #: 0:20cv700, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Civil Procedure, Patent