This case has a storied history, and at every opportunity, Defendants have tried to avoid a jury trial on Adherent’s claims. Today, the Minnesota Court of Appeals put an end to Defendants’ delay tactics.
From December 2016 to April 2017, Defendants moved for summary judgment twice. In August 2017, the district court denied Defendants’ motions, expressly finding that facts in the record demonstrated that Defendants had improperly disclosed Adherent’s information and breached their duties of loyalty, confidentiality and disclosure. Having lost their multiple efforts to dismiss Adherent’s claims, Defendants quickly changed course and moved to compel arbitration pursuant to a contract to which Defendants were not parties. The district court, however, sided with Adherent and found that arbitration was not required. Defendants appealed.
In an Opinion filed July 23, 2018, the Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected Defendants’ efforts to compel arbitration, finding that Defendants had no standing to force Adherent into arbitration, and that even if Defendants had a right to compel arbitration, they waived that right by their dilatory conduct in the district court.
Phil Kaplan successfully argued the appeal on behalf of Adherent. It is Phil’s second appellate victory in 2018.
Anthony Ostlund’s Client, Adherent Laboratories, prevails at the Minnesota Court of Appeals and heads to trial.
July 23, 2018