Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Bjorn Myklatun and his company, Plaintiff Oil Innovation, brought claims of tortious interference, fraud, and civil conspiracy against Chemical Equipment and Specialties, Inc. (CESI); its parent company, Flotek Industries; Flotek president Todd Sanner; and former Flotek CEO Jerry Dumas. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the claim of tortious interference and one of Plaintiffs’ two theories of fraud. A jury entered a verdict in favor of all Defendants on the civil conspiracy claim. The jury also found in favor of Sanner and Dumas on the narrowed claim of fraud, but it found for Plaintiffs on the fraud claim against CESI and Flotek. Plaintiffs appealed, also raising various evidentiary and other challenges relating to their damages on the fraud claim, and they contended the jury’s verdict on the civil conspiracy and fraud claims was facially inconsistent and required a new trial. Because the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Court did not address those other arguments. View "Myklatun, et al v. Halliburton Energy Services, et al" on Justia Law

Derek Braswell suffered a horrific workplace accident: while operating a press brake manufactured by Cincinnati, Inc., his right arm was crushed, and eventually had to be amputated. Despite warnings, Braswell reached into the die area to remove a jammed piece of metal. The machine's safety equipment designed to prevent this type of accident had been removed or disabled sometime prior to the accident. After his injury, Braswell filed a suit against Cincinnati on theories of strict products liability and negligence. The district court granted summary judgment for Cincinnati on the grounds that a subsequent owner had modified the press brake to create the danger and that the gated pedal on the original model made the press brake not unreasonably dangerous. The Tenth Circuit agreed that the press brake was not unreasonably dangerous: with its warnings and safety devices, the machine did not pose a danger beyond that which the ordinary operator of the machine would appreciate. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Braswell v. Cincinnati Incorporated, et al" on Justia Law

Novell, Inc. filed suit against Microsoft Corporation, alleging anti-trust violations. The matter went to trial in 2011, ending in deadlock. The district court concluded Microsoft's conduct did not offend section 2 of the Sherman Act, and entered judgment as a matter of law. Novell appealed to the Tenth Circuit, arguing that Microsoft refused to share its intellectual property with rivals after first promising to do so. The Tenth Circuit concluded after its review that Novell presented no evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that Microsoft's discontinuation of this arrangement suggested a "willingness to sacrifice short-term profits, […] in a manner that was irrational but for its tendency to harm competition." View "Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation" on Justia Law

Debtor-Appellant Market Center East Retail Property, Inc. appealed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's affirming of the bankruptcy court's award of attorney's fees to Appellees Barak Lurie and his firm, Lurie & Park. Lurie was Market Center’s attorney in completing the sale of a retail shopping center to Lowe’s Home Center. Market Center argued: (1) the bankruptcy court erred in calculating the amount of attorney’s fees because the bankruptcy court should have used the lodestar approach in its calculations; (2) that the 11 U.S.C. 330(a)(3) factors were an exhaustive list of factors that the bankruptcy court was required to consider; and (3) that Congress intended 11 U.S.C. 330(a) to be construed consistently with case law for awarding attorney's fees under federal fee-shifting statutes such as 42 U.S.C. 1988. While the Tenth Circuit did not agree with Market Center in all regards, the Court nonetheless reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the fees. View "Market Center East Retail Prop, et al v. Lurie, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Buschco Corp., Companions, LLC and TT II, Inc. are escort services. The State of Utah brought suit in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Appellants claimed certain amendments to the Utah Code were overly broad, unconstitutionally vague, and infringed on their right to free speech under the First Amendment to the federal constitution. The district court found that portions of Utah's Sexual Solicitation Statute were unconstitutionally vague, and upheld other parts. Appellants appealed. Three issues presented to the Tenth Circuit were: (1) whether issue preclusion applied to the Statute's constitutionality since a similar, predecessor statute had been held unconstitutional; (2) whether Amendments to the Sexual Solicitation Statute were overbroad or placed too great a burden on First Amendment rights; and (3) whether the Amendments to the Statute were unconstitutionally vague. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held: (1) issue preclusion did not apply; (2) the amendments were not unconstitutionally overbroad; and (3) the statute implicated in this appeal was not unconstitutionally vague. View "Bushco, et al v. Shurtleff, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellee John Niemi and several investors intended to build a large luxury ski condominium complex. Niemi was unable to find traditional financing for the project, and turned to Florida businessman, Defendant Michael Burgess. Burgess claimed to represent a European investor, Defendant-Appellee Erwin Lasshofer. As part of the funding scheme, plaintiff had to pay certain fees and pledge a collateral deposit before $250 million dollars would be loaned to him (and his business partners/investors) for the condo project. For his part, Burgess was eventually convicted and sentenced to federal prison for fraud and money laundering. Plaintiffs sued seeking return of the money they pledged, alleging the lost loan irreparably damaged its business, caused millions in lost profits, and sent its other real properties into foreclosure. Burgess maintained he took direction from Lasshofer; Lasshofer claimed he unwittingly did business with a con man. The district court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction effectively freezing Lasshofer's worldwide assets pending final judgment. Lasshofer appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction. Upon careful review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs, Niemi and individual investors in his condo project, lacked standing to bring suit. Therefore the district court erred in granting the injunction. The injunction was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Niemi, et al v. Burgess, et al" on Justia Law

The issue before the Court in this matter concerned interpretation of an errors-and-omissions policy. The policy excluded coverage for claims "arising out of" bankruptcy or insolvency. The dispute grew from a stop-loss policy issued by United Re to a company that had hired Plaintiff-Appellee C.L. Frates as a broker. After the policy was issued, United filed for bankruptcy protection. When Frates learned of the bankruptcy, it learned that United had been sued in Ohio, and filed for bankruptcy to stall the litigation. Ultimately, Frates recommended to its client that it move the stop-loss insurance to another insurer. The client agreed. However, Frates had to reimburse the client for what it lost through higher deductibles. Frates then sued Westchester Fire Insurance Company under its errors-and-omissions policy. In cross-motions for summary judgment, Westchester contended that Frates's claim "arose out of" United's bankruptcy or insolvency. Frates contended that the claim "arose out of" United's deception. The district court agreed with Frates and granted its motion for summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit disagreed with the district court. It held that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded that Frates's claim arose out of United's bankruptcy or insolvency. Accordingly the Court reversed the award of summary judgment to Frates. View "CL Frates v. Westchester Fire" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Susan and Steven Schrock filed suit against manufacturers of the drug metoclopramide, alleging that Susan's use of the generic drug caused her to develop tardive dyskinesia. In a series of orders, the district court dismissed all claims in favor of the manufacturer. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the dismissal of their claims against PLIVA USA, Inc., Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Schwarz Pharma, Inc., and Wyeth, Inc. The Tenth Circuit abated this appeal pending the Supreme Court’s decision in "Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett" (133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013)). In light of "Bartlett," the Tenth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs' breach-of-warranty claims against PLIVA and Qualitest were preempted by federal law. The Court also agreed with the district court that plaintiffs' non-warranty claims against the generic manufacturers were barred by Oklahoma’s two year statute of limitations. With respect to the plaintiffs' claims against Schwarz and Wyeth, the Court agreed with the district court’s determination that Oklahoma tort law would not provide a remedy. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that the plaintiffs' notice of appeal was untimely as to certain orders they sought to appeal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court. View "Schrock, et al v. Wyeth Inc., et al" on Justia Law

The government sued Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellant James Holmes to collect taxes owned on his now-defunct business, Colorado Gas Compression, Inc. The district court granted final judgment in favor of the government. Defendant appealed that judgment. The government cross-appealed the district court's decision regarding the date from which prejudgment interest would be awarded. Colorado Gas made a series of distributions to defendant from 1995 to 2002 as part of its winding-down process. The government brought suit in 2008 on state counts of fraudulent conveyances, unlawful distributions and as an owner of the company who received its assets. Defendant argued the government was estopped from bringing suit under the applicable state statute of limitations because the government's suit was based on state law. The government countered by arguing its claims were subject to a ten-year federal statute of limitations. Upon careful consideration, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in ruling in favor of the government. The Court further concluded that the government did not properly preserve the issue of prejudgment interest for appeal, and declined to consider it. View "United States v. Holmes" on Justia Law

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case centered on a written consumer contract for the sale of goods and whether it incorporated by reference a separate document entitled "Terms of Sale" which was available on the seller's website, but that the contract stated that it was "subject to" the seller's "Terms of Sale" but does not specifically reference the website? Finding no controlling precedent, the Tenth Circuit decided to certify the question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. View "Walker, et al v. BuildDirect.com Technologie" on Justia Law