DISCLAIMER:  The following unofficial case summaries are prepared by the clerk's office
                        as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
152879P.pdf   05/11/2017  Rudy Webb  v.  Exxon Mobil Corporation
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2879
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock   
[PUBLISHED] Riley, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Contracts. In action alleging Exxon had materially breached the terms of easement contracts by failing to properly inspect and maintain a pipeline, the district court did not err in decertifying the class on the ground that the pipeline is composed of individual segments and Exxon's actions or inactions with respect to one individual's land would not necessarily implicate the interests of any other landowner; while the question of unreasonable use of an easement is generally one of fact, dependent on the nature of the easement, the grant and other circumstances, the evidence here was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Exon had unreasonably interfered with plaintiff's property, and the district court did not err in granting Exxon summary judgment on plaintiffs' breach of easement contract claims; the district court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment based on a claim that Exxon delayed submitting certain discovery documents. 153540P.pdf 05/11/2017 Elizabeth McLeod v. General Mills, Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 15-3540 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Shepherd, Circuit Judge, and Strand, District Judge] Civil case - Employment discrimination. In action by former General Mills employees asserting that the waivers they signed releasing all ADEA claims and agreeing to arbitrate release-related disputes were not knowing and voluntary, the district court erred in denying General Mills' motion to compel individual arbitration. 163591P.pdf 05/11/2017 Andrea L. Dammann v. Progressive Direct Insurance U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3591 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Beam and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs failed to show that it was legally impossible for them to recover more than $5 million in damages, and the district court did not err in denying their motion to remand the matter to state court; nor did the court err in granting Progressive's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) as Minnesota's No Fault Act allows insurers to offer policies with deductibles which reduce coverage below $20,000 for medical expenses and $20,000 for economic loss.