In Gulf States Reorganization Group, Inc. v. Nucor Corp., the plaintiff alleged that Nucor and others violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to restrain trade and monopolize the market for hot-rolled coil steel through agreements involving the acquisition and operation of a steel facility. After a special master reviewed the record and issued reports recommending summary judgment for Nucor on the conspiracy claims (Counts I and III), the district court conducted a de novo review and adopted those recommendations, also granting Nucor’s motions to exclude certain expert testimony. The court held that GSRG failed to present significant probative evidence of an agreement to restrain trade and could not establish the required elements of a relevant product or geographic market or market power. It further concluded that alternative grounds, such as the insufficiency of the plaintiff’s market definition evidence, independently supported dismissal of the Section 1 and conspiracy claims.
This case involves a dispute between an anesthesiologist and two insurance companies over the termination of residual disability benefits under two policies after the plaintiff returned to work part-time following a back injury. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, bad faith, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty, while the defendants counterclaimed for restitution of benefits paid. The court granted summary judgment to Paul Revere on all claims, partially granted and denied Met Life's motion, and denied the plaintiff's motion regarding the counterclaim, primarily reasoning that the policies' terms regarding residual disability and earnings reduction were not met or were properly interpreted by the insurers based on the evidence of the plaintiff's work and income.
The case involved a contract dispute between Alabama-based plaintiff Browning Enterprise and Colorado-based defendant Rex Iron over unpaid amounts for custom steel parts that Browning manufactured and shipped, with claims including breach of contract, open account, and work and labor performed. Rex Iron moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (or alternatively for improper venue), asserting minimal contacts with Alabama. The court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding it lacked personal jurisdiction over Rex Iron. The core reasoning was that Rex Iron's only contacts with Alabama consisted of a small number of purchases from Browning in transactions initiated by the plaintiff, with no physical presence, offices, employees, property, or regular business in the state, rendering those contacts insufficient to satisfy due process requirements for jurisdiction.
This case involves claims by current and former employees of Title Max companies seeking unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs, including store managers and assistant managers, alleged that they were non-exempt employees entitled to overtime pay, that any violations were willful (extending the statute of limitations), and that damages should be calculated using the regular overtime method. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing claims against store managers, ruling that violations were not willful, barring some claims by the two-year statute of limitations, and requiring the fluctuating workweek method for damages. As a result, only the claims of three assistant managers remain for trial.
The case involved plaintiff Sandra Henry, a long-time employee of the Jefferson County Personnel Board, who sued after her Administrative Coordinator position was eliminated during reductions in force (RIFs) implemented by a court-appointed receiver overseeing the Board. Henry alleged employment discrimination, including on the basis of age, under federal statutes. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact. It applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for disparate treatment claims, concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate that the Board's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (such as lack of work and application of seniority rules) were pretextual, and determined that her statistical evidence of discrimination was insufficient due to lack of controls and specificity.
Cindy Gibbs, a BellSouth service representative, sued after her claims for short-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed plan were denied and she was terminated for not timely seeking reinstatement following an unsuccessful appeal. She sought a preliminary injunction, alleging the company interfered with her protected rights under ERISA § 510. The court denied the motion, applying the arbitrary and capricious standard of review after finding insufficient evidence of bad faith or conflict of interest by the plan administrator. It concluded the benefit denial was reasonable because Gibbs did not satisfy the plan's definition of disability, which required inability to perform any type of work, and her termination followed the terms of the collective bargaining agreement and appeal leave program.