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.
164517P.pdf   02/16/2018  Qwinstar Corporation  v.  Curtis Anthony
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-4517
                          and No:  17-1809
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Wollman, Circuit Judge, and Goldberg, 
   Judge of the United States Court of International Trade] 
   Civil case - Contracts. The parties' contract concerning Qwinstar's 
   purchase of Anthony's company's assets was unambiguous and no external 
   evidence can be admitted to contradict, explain or supplement the terms 
   contained therein; the contract provided defendant agreed to sell Qwinstar 
   all inventory he had at the time the agreement was executed, and the 
   contract, which included an integration clause, did not include a list of 
   parts Anthony had previously provided Qwinstar, which Qwinstar contended 
   was more extensive than what was actually received; there was no evidence, 
   therefore, that Anthony failed to deliver the inventory he possessed at 
   the time the agreement was executed, and he did not breach the purchase 
   agreement; order granting Anthony summary judgment on his counterclaim for 
   breach of the employment agreement between the parties was inappropriate 
   because the contract provisions regarding termination were ambiguous and 
   reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation; the district 
   court's order granting Anthony summary judgment on his counterclaim is 
   reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. 
171604P.pdf   02/16/2018  Aldridge Winfrey  v.  City of Forrest City, Arkansas
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-1604
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena    
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Gruender and Melloy, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Title VII. Plaintiff's retaliation claim, on its face, was 
   outside the bounds of Title VII as he had not pleaded that he engaged in 
   "protected conduct;" protesting application of unfair treatment unmoored 
   from the distinct classes Title VII protects is not a basis for a Title 
   VII claim; attempt to introduce at the summary judgment stage of the case 
   a claim that the dismissal was race-based was untimely; no error in 
   dismissing state law contract claim.