Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Premium Freight Mgmt., LLC v. PM Engineered Solutions, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided October 10, 2018No. 17-3841Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLarsen, Circuit Judge

I agree with the majority that the district court erred in applying Connecticut's statutory postjudgment interest rate rather than the federal rate required under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. I also agree that the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) applies to Powdered Metal's unfair trade practices claim. But I do not think the district court made findings sufficient for us to review its decision that Bosal violated CUTPA. I would vacate that part of the opinion and remand the case for the district court to reconsider the issue and provide more detailed findings.

The district court correctly…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Naples v. Keystone Building & Development Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
  2. Roger Byrne v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API