• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
4 results

Olson v. PowerBlock, Inc. et al

Docket 0:21-cv-02713, Minnesota District Court (Dec. 21, 2021)
Judge Eric C. Tostrud, presiding, Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson
Anti-Trust
DivisionDMN
FlagsCLOSED, CV
Cause15:2 Antitrust Litigation
Case Type410 Anti-Trust
Tags410 Anti-Trust, 410 Anti-Trust
Plaintiff Gregory S. Olson
Defendant PowerBlock, Inc.
Defendant PowerBlock Holdings, Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 63 JUDGMENT (Attachments: # 1 Civil Notice - appeal)(MKB) (Entered: 05/24/2022)

Document Olson v. PowerBlock, Inc. et al, 0:21-cv-02713, No. 63 (D.Minn. May. 24, 2022)
Motion for Judgment
Decision by Court.
This action came to trial or hearing before the Court.
The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.
s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 29] is GRANTED IN PART.
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 (Count I) is DISMISSED WITH
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 62 OPINION AND ORDER: PowerBlock's motion to dismiss 29 is GRANTED IN PART

Document Olson v. PowerBlock, Inc. et al, 0:21-cv-02713, No. 62 (D.Minn. May. 23, 2022)
Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer)
Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted because Olson has failed to allege facts in his Amended Complaint plausibly showing that the state-court case is objectively baseless, an element made essential to his Sherman Act claim by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
The first is a non-compete covenant providing as follows: 7.1 Gregory S. Olson agrees that he will not, for a period of six years from the date of this Agreement, compete with Purchasers, directly or indirectly, as an owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner or employee of any In describing the relevant facts and resolving Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, all factual allegations in the Amended Complaint are accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences are drawn in Olson’s favor.
Your March 2, 2021 email merely indicated that the strength training idea “has a wide range of options and sizings,” and did not mention or even illude [sic] to alternative plate shapes—possibly an important distinguishing feature.
On September 28, 2021, PowerBlock sued Olson in Minnesota District Court, Steele County, asserting claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, misappropriation of trade secrets, and civil theft under Minn. Stat. § 604.14.
district court has dismissed every federal claim, ... judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity will usually point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” McManemy v. Tierney, 970 F.3d 1034, 1041 (8th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Elmore v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., 844 F.3d 764, 767 (8th Cir. 2016); Hervey v. Cnty.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1 COMPLAINT against PowerBlock Holdings, Inc., PowerBlock, Inc. (filing fee $ 402, receipt number ...

Document Olson v. PowerBlock, Inc. et al, 0:21-cv-02713, No. 1 (D.Minn. Dec. 21, 2021)
Complaint
PowerBlock’s sham trade secret misappropriation litigation has injured Olson by causing him the loss of business opportunities and by forcing him to expend money and resources to defend himself against PowerBlock’s frivolous claims.
On August 2, 2021, Olson responded, reiterating that all of the variations were the same new adjustable dumbbell design and noting that PowerBlock had missed the 90 day deadline to provide notice of its intent to proceed with the concept.
In its Complaint, PowerBlock alleged causes of action against Olson for Breach of Contract, Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, and Theft Under Minn. Stat. § 604.14.
In addition, by virtue of the same section, Olson is entitled to recover he attorneys’ 11436636/1 CASE 0:21-cv-02713-ECT-BRT Doc. 1 Filed 12/21/21 Page 13 of 15 fees and costs incurred in bringing and pursuing this antitrust action, and in defending against PowerBlock’s sham state court litigation.
On Count I, judgment in favor of Olson and against PowerBlock for treble damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus all costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in having to prosecute this matter;
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search