Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

A business entity sued an investment fund manager for fraud in Massachusetts state court. Defendant removed to federal court, which dismissed based on the statute of limitations. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit noted that the allegations were insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction and instructed plaintiff to identify the citizenship of all of its members. Plaintiff did not comply, but simply asserted that none of its members shared defendant's Rhode Island citizenship. The court stated that it could not proceed to judgment with the information it had and ordered plaintiff to provide the necessary information, under seal.

The companies are direct competitors in importing and distributing pharmaceutical ingredients manufactured in China. Plaintiff claimed that defendant intentionally interfered with one of its contracts and sought damages. In court-ordered settlement negotiations, plaintiff demanded $675,000. Defendant made a counter-offer, demanding that plaintiff pay it $444,444.44 in order to settle the case and avoid a motion for sanctions and a suit for malicious prosecution. The court noted that the peculiar amount was due to the fact that the number four is considered an unlucky number in Chinese culture because it is homophonous with the Chinese word for death, but concluded that it was not a death threat and declined to impose sanctions. The court later entered summary judgment for defendant. The First Circuit affirmed the court's refusal to impose sanctions under FRCP 11. Plaintiff's claims were not patently frivolous.

Plaintiff alleged antitrust violations of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 12-27, and Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1-7, and violations of Puerto Rico law based on defendants' merger and later activities. Plaintiff has been a competitor with defendant in the ice cream distribution market. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants.The First Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff was not negatively affected by purported violations, there is no evidence of increased consumer prices or reduced output. The challenged conduct has been in place for at least two years and the remaining market remains robustly competitive as evidenced by ongoing entry, profitability of rivals, and stability of their aggregate market share.

Plaintiff designs, manufactures, and sells computer mice and, in 1995, contracted with defendant to manufacture the products in bulk. The agreement identifies the "Product" as inventions, designs, methods and related information concerning computer mouse products and precludes defendant from disclosing, using, or copying "Confidential Information," or manufacturing, or otherwise commercially exploiting the Product, or developing other products derived from the Product. In 2009, defendant began to make near copies using plaintiff's production tooling, Plaintiff claimed violation of the New Hampshire Uniform Trade Secrets Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. 350-B:1 to -B:9 and breach of contract. The district court entered a preliminary injunction, ordering defendant to stop production of the copies. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the relief was appropriate, based on the record.

The district court entered an order to enforce a settlement agreement against a partner, which the partner signed after mediation of several lawsuits concerning six family-run real estate partnerships. The partner had filed no objection within the 14-day period required under the local rules. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting the partner's challenges to subject matter jurisdiction. The court's order that the partner sign a release was within its power and claims that the settlement was ambiguous were too late.

Plaintiff, a resident of Nevada, negotiated an oral contract with defendant, a citizen and resident of Israel. Defendant worked for one of plaintiff's companies, a Delaware corporation with offices in Massachusetts and Israel, from 1996-2000 and claimed that the agreement entitled him to a 12 percent investment in plaintiff's casino venture. Plaintiff claimed that defendant was entitled to 12 percent of net from high-tech sector investments recommended by defendant and filed a declaratory judgment action. On remand after reversal of dismissal for forum non conveniens, the district court ruled in favor of plaintiff. The First Circuit affirmed, first holding that defendant's contacts with Massachusetts were sufficient for jurisdiction. The district court properly placed the burden of proof on defendant, the natural plaintiff who would have had the burden of proving his affirmative claim to the 12 percent option in a damages action; the burden of proof was, nonetheless, not dispositive. The record supported the finding that there was no meeting of minds on the option.