From our private database of 13,300+ case briefs...
Methode Electronics, Inc. v. Adam Technologies, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
371 F.3d 923 (2004)
Following suits in Delaware and New Jersey, Methode Electronics, Inc. (Methode) (plaintiff), Adam Technologies, Inc. (Adam Tech) (defendant), and Vincent DeVito (defendant) executed a settlement and license agreement. The terms provided that Methode would sell its Adam Tech stock to DeVito, as well as the Adam Tech trade name, trademarks, and a substantial amount of inventory. Methode would retain the right to market the remaining Adam Tech merchandise in its possession. Adam Tech and DeVito were allowed, during the license period, to sell the inventory Methode transferred to them. After the agreements were signed, Adam Tech and DeVito sent a press release to Methode’s customers, offering merchandise for sale. Methode sued Adam Tech and DeVito in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that the press release violated Methode’s contractual rights. To establish venue, paragraph 19 of the complaint alleged that the press release had been sent to Methode distributors and customers in the Northern District of Illinois. The defendants sent a letter to Methode challenging venue, asserting their conduct was permitted, and stating that sanctions would be sought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 11 if Methode proceeded with its suit in Illinois. Methode’s executive vice president, James McQuillen, instructed Methode’s attorney, Terrence Canade, to proceed. Canade moved for a temporary restraining order against the defendants and scheduled a hearing. On the hearing date, the defendants contested the merits of Methode’s claim and the appropriateness of venue, moving orally for sanctions with respect to the latter. The court ordered Methode and Canade to show cause why paragraph 19 did not violate Rule 11(b)(3). Methode voluntarily dismissed its case. With the motion for sanctions still pending, however, the parties conducted discovery, which showed that the press release had never been sent to the Northern District and that both McQuillen and Canade seemed to know paragraph 19 lacked a factual basis. The court found Methode’s conduct “intentionally deceptive” and imposed fines and attorney’s fees against Methode and Canade totaling $65,000. Methode appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Evans, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 139,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,300 briefs, keyed to 182 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.