North Star Hotels Corp. v. Mid-City Hotel Associates
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
118 F.R.D. 109 (1987)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
North Star Hotels Corp. (North Star) (plaintiff) managed the Minneapolis Hilton Hotel and sued owner Mid-City Hotel Associates (defendant) for breach of the management contract. The law firm Faegre & Benson (Faegre) represented North Star. Mid-City moved to disqualify Faegre from representing North Star because Mid-City’s general partner, Harry Johnson, owned significant interests in two other real estate development partnerships that Faegre also represented. As general partner, Johnson would be personally liable for any judgment not satisfied by Mid-City’s assets. Faegre represented only the partnership entities in the ventures while other attorneys represented Johnson himself, but Johnson had personally guaranteed $3 million of the partnerships’ debt. Mid-City’s attorney claimed Johnson was denied a letter of credit needed to close a transaction for one of the partnerships after Faegre filed a lis pendens in connection with the litigation, and that partnership formally asked Faegre to withdraw from representing North Star. Mid-City argued that Faegre representing North Star was directly adverse to the partnerships’ financial interests or would materially limit its representation.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Symchych, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.