Legal Resources

Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. Octane Fitness, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; and Nellie’s Exercise Equipment, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants. Civil No. 09-319 ADM/SRN.United States District Court, D. Minnesota.   MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On October 21, 2010, a Markman hearing …

Fed. R. Evid. 702 to be admissible, therefore, proposed expert testimony based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge must meet three prerequisites: it must be relevant, reliable, and offered by a qualified witness Read More »

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Richard and Patricia Martin, Plaintiffs, v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant. INTRODUCTION On August 21, 2008, the home of Plaintiffs Richard and Patricia Martin (“the Martins”) was significantly damaged in a fire. They filed a claim with their insurer, Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company …

In Minnesota timely submission of proof of loss is not a condition precedent to suit; rather, it is a condition precedent to recovery Read More »

PEGRAM et al. v. HERDRICH No. 98-1949.United States Supreme Court. Argued February 23, 2000.Decided June 12, 2000.CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT212*212 213*213 Souter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Virginia A. Seitz …

Appropriate for court to use brief to clarify complaint’s contents Read More »

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Select Comfort Corporation, Plaintiff, v. The Sleep Better Store, LLC, Defendant. Plaintiff Select Comfort Corporation asserts violations of federal trademark and false advertising statutes, state false advertising statutes, and other state consumer protection statutes against Defendant The Sleep Better Store, LLC (Sleep Better). The parties are competitors in …

Minnesota’s private attorney general statute, Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a (2010) must have public benefit Read More »

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 3M COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, and 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Pradeep Mohan, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on Plaintiffs 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties Company’s (collectively “3M”) Motion to Certify …

Minnesota Federal Court Failure to Post Supersedeas Bond to Stay Execution and No Assets Give Rise to Good Cause to Register Judgment in Different State Read More »

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-721 Thomas J. Maday, Appellant, vs. Tim Grathwohl, et al., Respondents. Filed November 14, 2011 Affirmed Connolly, Judge   Martin County District Court File No. 46-CV-10-536             Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Hudson, Judge; and Connolly, Judge. S Y L L A B U S             …

Integration Clause Supersedes any Preexisting Oral Agreements on Same Subject Matter Read More »

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA enXco Development Corporation, Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Civil No. 11?1171 Northern States Power Company, Defendant. ____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on Defendant Northern States Power Company’s (“NSP”) motion to dismiss. Factual Background Plaintiff enXco Development Corporation (“enXco”) is a company that is involved with …

Doctrine of Temporary Impracticability or Impossibility is an Available Defense under Minnesota Law Read More »

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Aviva Sports, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Fingerhut Direct Marketing, Inc., Menard, Inc., Kmart Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Manley Toys, Ltd., Defendants. Plaintiff Aviva Sports, Inc. (Aviva) brought this action against Defendants Fingerhut Direct Marketing, Inc. (Fingerhut), Menard, Inc. (Menard), Kmart Corporation (Kmart), Wal- Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart), and …

Lanham Act To recover profits, “the plaintiff shall be required to prove defendant’s sales only; defendant must prove all elements of cost or deduction claimed.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) Read More »

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Ritrama, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Burlington Graphic Systems, Inc., Defendant. ____________________________________________________________________________ SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue to the Eastern District of Wisconsin filed by Defendant Burlington Graphic Systems, Inc., …

Exceptions to the First Filed Rule Transfer Action Read More »