Claimant appealed from a judgment of the district court ordering the forfeiture to plaintiff United States, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 401(a), of certain communication-jamming devices, to wit, the defendant-in-rem Jammers, owned by claimant and a company of which he was the majority shareholder and CEO. On appeal, claimant contended that the district court erred in dismissing his claim, arguing principally that the stipulation he signed was void on the grounds that it was signed under duress and without consideration. The court held that, as a matter of New York law, no consideration for claimant's agreement to the release was needed; and thus, if consideration was absent, its absence did not make the stipulation invalid. The court also held that claimant's assertions did not meet any part of the test of duress. The court further held that the district court correctly granted the government's motion to strike or for summary judgment on the ground of claimant's lack of Article III standing. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant is a captive insurer owned by plaintiff plans across the nation. In 2003 healthcare providers filed class action suits in Florida against all of those plans. Twelve plans, which had errors-and-omissions insurance from defendant, asked it to assume the defense and indemnify. Defendant declined, and the plans demanded arbitration. Acting under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 5, the district court held that the arbitrators could determine whether arbitration of a class action or consolidated arbitration were authorized by contract and appointed a third arbitrator. The court dismissed the appeal of the court's first ruling for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the appointment. If defendant wanted a judge to decide whether the plans' demands should be arbitrated jointly or separately, it should have refused to appoint an arbitrator. Both sides appointed arbitrators, however, and the proceeding got under way. Nothing in the Federal Arbitration Act authorizes anticipatory review of the arbitrators' anticipated decisions on procedural questions.

Defendant was managing member of a partnership that built a warehouse and began receiving rent. In 2000, plaintiff acquired a 10% interest in the business that garnered about 45% of its net cash flow. A year later, plaintiff was in an accident and suffered brain injury. In 2002 plaintiff had his guardianship terminated, representing that he was able to manage his own affairs. Weeks later, defendant notified plaintiff that the warehouse tenant was in bankruptcy. In 2003, defendant purchased plaintiff's interest for $600,000. In a complaint filed more than five years later, plaintiff claimed breach of fiduciary duty; that he sold his interest only because defendant represented that the tenant was delinquent on rent. The district court granted defendant summary judgment, applying the Illinois discovery rule with respect to the limitations period, and holding that plaintiff could not rely on his self-serving affidavit to create an issue of material fact when his deposition testimony contradicted his representations about his ability to verify the tenant's payment of rent. The court held that defendant a basis for indemnity by plaintiff. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that plaintiff waived any claim of legal disability and that the 2000 agreement unambiguously provided for an award of fees.

Excel Construction entered into a contract with the Town of Lovell to replace the Town's water and sewer system mains and service connections. Excel subsequently filed a complaint against the Town of breach of contract and related claims. The district court dismissed Excel's claims for failure to submit a governmental notice of claim that met the itemization requirements of the Wyoming Constitution and Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Excel's notice of claim met the itemization requirements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-39-113(b)(iii) and Wyo. Const. art. XVI, 7; (2) Excel complied with the service requirements of Wyo. Const. art. XVI, 7 when it served its notice of claim on the mayor, town administrator, town attorney, and town project engineer; and (3) the district court had jurisdiction to consider Excel's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Remanded.

On June 17, 2006, wife applied for a $500,000 life insurance policy. She paid $100 and signed a conditional receipt agreement for immediate coverage, subject to conditions that "on the Effective Date the Proposed Insured(s) is (are) insurable exactly as applied for under the Company’s printed underwriting rules for the plan, amount and premium rate class applied for; ... (C) the Proposed Insured(s) has/have completed all examinations and/or tests requested by the Company." On June 28, wife was examined and submitted specimens. Her cholesterol level and urine sample raised concerns. The company sought medical records from her physician and a second urine specimen. On July 22, 2006, wife was diagnosed with a brain tumor. On August 9, the company declared wife uninsurable based on her brain surgery. About a year later, she died. Husband claimed that the request for the second urine specimen was communicated in a untimely and ineffective fashion. The district court entered summary judgment for the insurance company on claims of breach of contract, estoppel, bad faith, and negligence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding no evidence of purposeful misconduct; if there was no contract, any duty of good faith did not come into play.

The Fronks (Fronks) purchased two pieces of property from the Collinses (Collins), and the parties entered into an oral agreement whereby Collins would acquire horses and Collins would be entitled to keep the first foal from each mare as payment for their services. Fronks later transferred $215,000 to Collins for the acquisition of the horses. Fronks later deeded the properties back to Collins with the understanding that Collins would reconvey the land back to Fronks within five years. The parties subsequently signed an agreement setting forth each party's obligations. When Collins did not comply with the agreement, Fronks brought an action for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and misrepresentation seeking, inter alia, to enforce the agreement and recover damages, obtain ownership of the real property, and recover attorney fees. The district court determined that the agreement was a valid, enforceable contract and granted summary judgment to Fronks. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agreement was a valid contract and the agreement did not suffer from a lack of consent by virtue of duress or menace.

JLB Corporation, a mortgage brokering service, entered into an agreement with Bonnie Hargis to refinance her home. JLB then prepared Hargis's loan application and other financial disclosure documents. JLB alleged it played no role in drawing the note or deed of trust, which were prepared by third parties, and it did not charge for their preparation. Hargis, however, filed a three-count petition against JLB, alleging, inter alia, that JLB engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of JLB on all counts. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the grant of summary judgment to JLB as to the first two counts relating to the unauthorized practice of law where the record showed that JLB assisted Hargis only in preparing financial documents and did not show that JLB procured or assisted in the drawing of Hargis' note, deed of trust, or other legal documents; and (2) reversed the grant of summary judgment to JLB on the third count alleging unjust enrichment, as JLB's summary judgment motion failed to negate any element of Hargis' unjust enrichment claim. Remanded.

Trinity Mortgage Companies, Inc. (Trinity) appealed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of David Dryer and Dryer and Associates, P.C. (Dryer). Trinity, formerly a mortgage brokerage company owned by Shawn Cremeen, entered into a franchise agreement with 1st Class Lending, Inc., which was owned by Dennis Junker and Richard Gheisar. In April 2007, Junker sued Gheisar and Trinity in Oklahoma state court for breach of contract, fraud, defamation, and conversion, all concerning his alleged wrongful termination. Between May 2007 and April 2008, Dryer represented Trinity, without a written contract. In October 2007, while the lawsuit was pending, Trinity entered into an agreement to sell most of its assets and to stop originating loans. Meanwhile, after Trinity failed to file an answer in the pending lawsuit, Junker moved for a default judgment against Trinity. Because Dryer failed to object to entry of default judgment against Trinity, the state court granted the motion against Trinity in January 2008. The another firm replaced Dryer as Trinity’s counsel, who unsuccessfully sought to vacate the default judgment against Trinity. Cremeen and Junker eventually entered into a settlement agreement concerning the lawsuit. Trinity confessed a final judgment in favor of Junker but the only recovery of this amount would be through his ownership interest in Trinity, which was the action against Dryer. Trinity moved for partial summary judgment on its malpractice and breach of contract claims. Dryer moved for summary judgment, contending that all claims were barred as a matter of law because Trinity unlawfully assigned them to Junker. In response, Trinity argued that there had not been an assignment of tort causes of action; there was never any collusion between Trinity and Junker; and that the malpractice case was not contingent upon disproving the merits of the underlying suit against Trinity. The district court granted Dryer’s motion for summary judgment and denied Trinity’s motion for partial summary judgment. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Dryer.

Plaintiff sued defendant asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, and breach of contract where the gravamen of the complaint was that defendant mismanaged the portfolio of an entity whose obligations plaintiff guaranteed. At issue was whether the Martin Act, General Business Law art 23-A, preempted plaintiff's common-law causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence. The court agreed with plaintiff that the Martin Act did not preclude a private litigant from bringing a nonfraud common-law cause of action where the Martin Act did not expressly mention or otherwise contemplate the elimination of common-law claims.

In 1995, plaintiff, a popular psychic and astrologer, and defendant entered into a contract for production and distribution of materials featuring plaintiff's psychic and astrological services. Plaintiff granted defendant the right to use his trademark, name, and likeness. After a 2006 dispute led to litigation; a jury rejected plaintiff's claim that he had validly terminated the agreement, found that he had violated the agreement, and found that defendant owed him no compensation. In 2009, both parties sought injunctive relief to prevent the other party from using the trademark. The district court entered a preliminary injunction in favor of defendant, finding that plaintiff had assigned the trademark in perpetuity. The First Circuit affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction, based on its interpretation of the agreement and application of collateral estoppel, based on the prior litigation.