The case involved BP Products North America Inc. suing Merritt Oil Co., Inc. and R. Fred Walding for breach of various supply and incentive contracts, as well as to enforce personal guaranty agreements, seeking damages for unpaid amounts and unamortized costs. The district court granted BP Products' motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the defendants failed to contest any of BP Products' proposed facts or raise a genuine dispute of material fact, and BP Products met its burden of showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the breach of contract claims under the applicable standards and local rules.
This case involves the United States' motion to postpone the trial in a criminal matter pending a ruling on the defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The government sought delay because the suppression hearing was scheduled after jury selection, arguing that proceeding with selection could bar its right to appeal an adverse suppression ruling under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 since jeopardy would attach. The court denied the motion, holding that jeopardy attaches only when the jury is empaneled and sworn, not merely selected, and thus the government would retain its appeal rights if the suppression ruling occurred before the jury was sworn.
The case involved AK Steel Corporation suing three former employees of its Rockport Works facility who resigned and joined competitor ThyssenKrupp, alleging breach of employment agreements containing non-disclosure and non-compete provisions, misappropriation of trade secrets under Ohio law, breach of duty of loyalty, and breach of common-law confidentiality duties. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims after the case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds and transferred to the Southern District of Alabama. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the plaintiffs failed to show evidence of economic damages or disclosure of protectable trade secrets in some instances but finding triable issues on certain contractual non-disclosure claims, while ordering further briefing on injunctive relief and jurisdiction.
The case involves claims by Carlos Johnson, an African American employee at Austal USA, against his employer for hostile work environment and disparate treatment in pay and promotions based on race, in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court addressed the defendant's partial motion for summary judgment on these claims. The court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether racially motivated conduct, including use of the term "boy" and incidents involving nooses, created a hostile work environment, while granting summary judgment on certain untimely promotion claims under Title VII.
This case involves Sylvan Learning Inc. seeking to terminate license agreements with Learning Solutions, Inc. and Baldwin Management after a principal, Richard Blow, was convicted of bank fraud felonies, and to prevent the continued unauthorized use of its trademarks and system. The court considered a motion for preliminary injunction to enforce the terminations and post-termination obligations. The court granted the motion in part, enjoining the defendants from using Sylvan's licensed marks at the Alabama center and requiring compliance with certain contractual obligations under the Alabama agreement, while denying it in part as to other aspects, based on findings of likelihood of success on trademark infringement and breach of contract claims, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest.
This case involves a claim by plaintiff Asheley Crawford against her former employer Dolgen Corp. Inc. d/b/a Dollar General for allegedly terminating her employment because of her pregnancy, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to the claim. The court denied the motion, concluding that statements by the store manager Tara Pugh to another employee expressing unwillingness to hire or retain pregnant workers amounted to direct evidence of discrimination because they reflected a discriminatory attitude and were made by a person involved in the termination decision.
.jpg?width=900)