Case Summaries

[06/24] Baker v. Am. Horticulture Supply, Inc.
In an independent wholesale sales representative's suit for breach of contract, promissory fraud, and a violation under the Independent Wholesale Sales Representatives Contractual Relations Act of 1990, judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on the breach of contract and promissory fraud claims in concluding that the award of damages was excessive and that plaintiff was not entitled to a 10% commission in alleged sales; and 2) trial court's grant of defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the violation of the Act claim is reversed as the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that defendant willfully failed to enter into a written contract as required by the Act.

[03/29] Cole v. Homier Dist. Co.
In an action for breach of a tractor dealership agreement, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) because the dealership agreements at issue were not preexisting, but arose out of the agreements with defendant, plaintiff could not state a claim for tortious interference; 2) plaintiff's allegations did not provide grounds to infer an intent to defraud at the time of the agreement's formation; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that an expert's report was flawed both factually and methodologically. However, the judgment is reversed in part where there were factual issues as to whether defendant made sales of whole goods during the notice period under Mo. Rev. Stat. section 407.405.

[12/21] Collins v. Heritage Wine Cellars, Ltd.
In an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act brought by truck drivers against a wholesale importer and distributor of wine claiming that they were not paid overtime, judgment for the defendant is affirmed as the portion of the transportation that is entirely within Illinois is nevertheless interstate commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act and therefore, the Fair Labor Standards Act exempts from its overtime provisions any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 31502 of title 49.

[04/16] General Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown's, LLC
In a dispute involving a change to a dealership agreement, district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed where the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from consolidating its dealerships into a single facility, as the plan would not cause the plaintiff irreparable harm but would cause significant harm to the defendant and the public interest. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to conduct an early trial in order to limit the economic harm.

[03/25] US v. Kaloti Wholesale, Inc.
In a civil forfeiture suit, district court's judgment is affirmed where court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to allow the sale of the seized baby formula, as there was a concern over the safety of the formula and even a very slight danger was reason enough to bar the sale.

[03/17] Liberty Lincoln-Mercury Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
In a dispute over a franchise fee program, district court order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs is reversed and remanded where the district court did not make the necessary finding of irreparable harm to grant the injunction, as plaintiff's harm was incorrectly measured in solely monetary terms.

[03/05] Betts v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
In an employment discrimination action, judgment for Plaintiffs is affirmed in part, where a reasonable jury could find that Defendant's conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive to create a hostile work environment, but reversed in part, where there was no evidence of emotional distress damages.

[12/24] Cherry Hill Vineyards, LLC v. Lilly
An intervenor does have standing to appeal an adverse judgment, even if the state declines to appeal it, if the intervenor can independently demonstrate that he fulfills the requirements of Article III. In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit successfully challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of Kentucky's laws regulating small farm wineries, the judgment below is affirmed where the district court correctly found that the in-person purchase requirement in portions of Kentucky' s statutory scheme discriminated against interstate commerce by limiting the ability of out-of-state small farm wineries to sell and ship wine to Kentucky consumers.

[12/09] Ford Motor Co. v. Director of Revenue
State Director of Revenue's determination that it could lawfully impose an unapportioned tax on petitioner's receipts from sales of motor vehicles sold to independent dealerships located in Delaware is affirmed where: 1) the Wholesalers' Gross Receipts Tax did not violate the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution; 2) the decision in Dial Corp. v. Director of Revenue, 2008 WL 2058520 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 29, 2008) did not compel a holding that the tax could not be imposed; and 3) the tax was applied only to vehicles delivered in Delaware.

[09/03] Omega v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
In a copyright infringement action under 17 U.S.C. sections 106(3) and 602(a), grant of summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where non-counterfeit goods were first sold outside the U.S. and then imported for sale in the U.S. without the copyright holder's authorization, thus the first sale doctrine, section 109(a), does not apply.

[09/02] City of New York v. Smokes-Spirits.com
In a case concerning liability of out-of-state cigarette retailers for failing to report purchases by state residents to the state, alleging civil RICO claims, state common law fraud and public nuisance claims, and violations of General Business Law section 249, dismissal for failure to state a claims, is vacated in part, remanded in part, severed in part, affirmed in part, and two questions are certified to New York Appeals Court where: 1) defendant-City had standing to sue under RICO, where it has alleged a direct injury of lost taxes by reason of defendants' commission of mail and wire fraud through sale of cigarettes to City residents without complying with the Jenkins Act; 2) in all four cases, City failed to plead "reasonable reliance on the part of the plaintiff" for its claim of common law fraud; 3) for purposes of GBL, omission of information about a consumer's duty to pay taxes to that consumer's home state and city cannot be tantamount to an affirmative misrepresentation that a consumer does not need to pay taxes; and 4) questions regarding whether the City has standing to sue under GBL and whether the City may assert a common law public nuisance claim that is predicated on N.Y. Public Health Law section 1399-ll are certified to New York Court of Appeals.

[08/26] "R" Best Produce, Inc. v. DiSapio
In a contract dispute brought under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (PACA) regarding the sale of fruits and vegetables, order denying reconsideration is vacated and remanded where the appellant's claim that the default judgment should have been vacated for lack of personal jurisdiction raises unresolved factual errors.

[08/19] Specialty Beverages, L.L.C. v. Pabst Brewing Co.
In an action brought against Pabst Brewing Company for breach of contract and fraud, rulings on the parties' motions for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for attorney's fees are affirmed in part, but reversed and remanded in part where the district court: 1) correctly granted plaintiff's motion regarding Pabst's impossibility and impracticability defenses; 2) correctly denied Pabst's motion regarding lost profit damages; 3) correctly denied plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees; but 4) erred when it granted Pabst's motion regarding plaintiff's fraud claim.

[08/15] Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hoen
In an action brought by Costco against the Washington State Liquor Control Board and certain state officials contending that several of the state's liquor laws violate the Commerce Clause and federal antitrust law, a ruling in favor of Costco on most of its claims but finding that it could not recover attorney's fees and costs from an intervenor is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) intervenor was not liable for fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. section 1988(b); but 2) a remand was required on the issue of fee liability under 15 U.S.C. section 26 for a determination of whether Costco "substantially prevailed" on its antitrust claims within the meaning of that statute.

[08/07] Baude v. Heath
In a commerce-clause challenge to Indiana's regulations on direct wine shipments, an injunction against enforcement of the contested provisions is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) a wholesale clause forbidding any winery that acts as a wholesaler in any state from making direct shipments to Indiana consumers overly burdened interstate commerce while not providing sufficient local benefit; but 2) a face-to-face clause requiring would-be direct-wine buyers to visit a winery once in order to provide proof of age did not create such a burden.

[04/30] Delaware Valley Surgical Supply Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson
In an interlocutory appeal stemming from a disagreement between two different groups of plaintiffs about who has standing as a "direct purchaser" to bring a claim against Johnson & Johnson and subsidiaries under federal antitrust laws, a judgment ruling against plaintiff-hospital is affirmed as it lacked standing to pursue an antitrust claim under a direct purchaser theory.

[04/07] Rawoof v. Texor Petroleum Co., Inc.
In a suit alleging that defendant violated the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act by terminating plaintiff's gas station's motor-fuel franchise without the statutorily required notice and cause, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the shareholder-standing rule barred plaintiff from pursuing the case since he lacked a direct, personal injury independent of the derivative injury of a shareholder generally, and failed to bring himself within one of the recognized exceptions to the rule. Denial of defendant's request for attorney's fees is affirmed where plaintiff's action was not frivolous.

[03/19] Gen. Injectables & Vaccines, Inc. v. Gates
A decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals affirming the termination of a government contract for default is affirmed over wholesale pharmaceutical and supply distributor's claims that: 1) its failure to deliver any influenza vaccine did not constitute a default because a condition precedent of the FDA's release of the vaccine had not occurred; and 2) alternatively, if there was a default, it was excused under FAR 52.212-4(f).

[02/20] Ridge Chrysler Jeep, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Ams. LLC
In a suit by car dealers against a car manufacturer accusing the manufacturer of ending their franchises without adequate cause by requiring that they pay up front for inventory, dismissal of the suit for misconduct is affirmed where the instances of plaintiffs' misconduct were supported by adequate findings and the penalty of dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct.

[02/14] B. Fernandez & Hnos., Inc. v. Kellogg USA, Inc.
In a breach of contract suit involving the distribution of cereal products, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where there was an indispensable party to the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 whose joinder would destroy complete diversity. The district court also correctly denied costs and fees.

Back to Main