Susan Richard Nelson

Affiliations

• Hanson v. LOPAREX, INC.

  District Court, D. Minnesota · 2011-08-15 · cited 5×

  This case involved plaintiff Jon Hanson, a former Loparex employee, who sought a declaratory judgment that a 2006 non-compete agreement with his ex-employer was invalid or had expired, while Loparex asserted counterclaims and third-party claims against Mondi for tortious interference with contract and prospective business relationships based on Hanson's move to a competitor. The court granted summary judgment to Hanson and Mondi (denying Loparex's motion in part as moot), ruling that the non-compete provisions were unenforceable. The core reasoning was that the business clause was overbroad under Wisconsin law as it prohibited work for competitors in any capacity, the customer clause did not save the agreement, and the 24-month non-compete period had expired in August 2009 after Hanson was idled without duties since 2007.

  labor & employmentbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (12,780 words)

• Safco Products Co. v. Welcom Products, Inc.

  District Court, D. Minnesota · 2011-07-01 · cited 9×

  This case involves a design patent infringement action in which Safco Products Co., the owner of U.S. Patent No. D522,708 for a pushcart design, sued Welcom Products, Inc. and its Chinese manufacturer for selling the allegedly infringing Magna Cart MCX pushcart. Welcom asserted a defense of patent invalidity based on non-joinder of an alleged co-inventor and a counterclaim under the Lanham Act alleging false country-of-origin labeling on Safco's products. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement and invalidity, as well as a motion to exclude expert testimony. It granted in part and denied in part each of the three motions, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the inventor's conception of the design and the accuracy of manufacturing origin statements that precluded full resolution on summary judgment.

  business & regulatoryprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (17,890 words)

• Brady v. National Football League

  District Court, D. Minnesota · 2011-04-27 · cited 9×

  This case concerns the National Football League's lockout of players after the collective bargaining agreement expired and the players' union disclaimed further representation, prompting antitrust claims by players led by Tom Brady. The district court had previously issued a preliminary injunction halting the lockout, and the NFL sought a stay of that order pending appeal, citing issues including jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, primary jurisdiction of the NLRB over the union's disclaimer, and the non-statutory labor exemption from antitrust scrutiny. The court denied the motion to stay, applying the four-factor test of likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury to the applicant, harm to other parties, and the public interest. It determined that the NFL failed to make the required strong showing on the merits or that the balance of equities and public interest favored a stay, particularly without an expedited appeal.

  labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (5,808 words)

• Brady v. National Football League

  District Court, D. Minnesota · 2011-04-25 · cited 9×

  This case involves professional football players suing the National Football League and its teams over a lockout imposed after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, alleging antitrust violations under the Sherman Act as well as breach of contract. The court granted the Brady Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to end the lockout, finding a strong likelihood of success on the merits because the non-statutory labor exemption does not shield the league's conduct from antitrust scrutiny once bargaining has reached an impasse. The decision also determined that the players faced ongoing irreparable harm, including lost wages and career opportunities, that could not be adequately remedied by later monetary damages. The motion by the Eller Plaintiffs seeking the same relief was rendered moot.

  labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (28,708 words)