Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Little v. Wendy’s International, LLC
Seeking unpaid wages for himself and other class members, Jeffrey Little filed a putative class action against Wendy’s International LLC in Colorado state court.
Wendy’s removed the action to federal court, relying on the removal provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act.
But the district court held that Wendy’s had failed to file its removal motion within the applicable 30-day removal period. It therefore granted Little’s motion to remand the action to state court.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that, based on the law, the record and the issues litigated in district court, and without reliance on the district court’s allegedly improper findings, that the district court reached the right result by remanding to state court because Wendy’s removal was untimely.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.
Billie and Tracy Smith wanted to install a septic system on their property, and they insisted on receiving a permit before proceeding with the installation. A Costilla County official told them to install the system but refused to issue a permit until the system was fully installed and inspected.
The Smiths sued, alleging violations of due process and the takings clause. The district court dismissed the Smiths’ claims.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that while the Smiths may prefer a different permitting procedure, Costilla County’s existing procedure didn’t violate their constitutional rights.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.
DP Creations, LLC v. Adolly.com, et al.
In this copyright case, the question on appeal was whether the district court had personal jurisdiction over two Chinese companies that consented to jurisdiction in any judicial district where Amazon “may be found,” according to the opinion.
The district court interpreted the word “found” as requiring the plaintiff to show that Amazon does business in Utah such that it is subject to suit and service of process there, according to the opinion. The court determined that the plaintiff failed to make that showing.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the district court applied the wrong test. Whether Amazon may be “found” in Utah turned on whether its officers or agents are in Utah carrying on Amazon’s business there, not whether the manner in which Amazon does business in Utah renders it liable to suit and service of process there, according to the opinion.
The 10th Circuit also concluded that the plaintiff showed that Amazon’s officers and agents are carrying on Amazon’s business in Utah.
The 10th Circuit reversed the district court’s amended judgment and remanded.
In re: Overstock Securities, et al.
The Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd. sued Overstock Inc. and three high-ranking Overstock executives, alleging on behalf of itself and a putative class that Overstock violated various securities laws.
Mangrove, an institutional investor that shorted millions of Overstock shares, alleges that Overstock sought to create a new marketplace where it could exclude the short sellers it blamed for the company’s struggles.
Mangrove asserted four distinct securities law claims: First, Overstock violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5(b). Second, Overstock illegally manipulated the market by inducing an artificial short squeeze. Third, the executives violated the Exchange Act by causing Overstock to engage in wrongful conduct. Fourth, one of the executives violated the Exchange Act by illegally trading on inside information.
Overstock moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion. Mangrove sought leave to amend and refiled its complaint. Overstock moved to dismiss again, and the district court granted the second motion to dismiss and entered judgment in Overstock’s favor. Mangrove appealed.
According to the opinion, the case presented multiple issues of first impressions arising under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act. Chief among them was whether a fully disclosed corporate transaction can be “manipulative” under the Exchange Act. The district court held that it can’t, and the 10th Circuit Court agreed with the district court under the circumstances of this case.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.