Legal Opinion
Cummins Law Office, P.A. v. Norman Graphic Printing Co.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided November 21, 2011No. Civ. 11-2061 (RHK/FLN)PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RICHARD H. KYLE, District Judge.
This action arises out of the alleged failure by Defendant Norman Graphic Printing Company Limited (“Norman”) to pay legal fees to Plaintiff Cummins Law Office, P.A. (“Cummins”), a law firm that represented Norman in an action in the Washington County, Minnesota, District Court. Norman now moves to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, its Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
Cummins is a Minnesota law firm and Norman is a Hong Kong company. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-2.) In October 2009, they entered into a Fee…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Drobnak v. Andersen Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2009
- Brown v. Medtronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
- ServiceMaster of St. Cloud v. GAB Business Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Damon v. GroteboerDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2013
- United States v. Jo Anna BameCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2013
- Toomey v. DahlDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2014
- Gress v. Freedom Mortg. Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2019
- Kelley v. College of St. BenedictDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2012
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.