Budgetel Inns, Inc. v. Micros Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a complaint was deficient under Rule 9(b) where the plaintiff failed to identify what individuals at Micros made the statements and which of Budgetel’s own employees actually heard the communications
• predicting that Supreme Court of Wisconsin would recognize an exception for fraud in the inducement claims
• predicting that Wisconsin would provide a general fraud in the inducement exception
• predicting that Wisconsin would provide a general fraud in the inducement exception
• granting the defendant’s summary judgment 9 claim as to the plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim where she “failed to meet the minimal 10 burden of establishing that she was treated differently than other similarly-situated 11 employees from outside her protected class”
• “[The] Court need not address the 9 other claims plaintiff raises, none of which would provide plaintiff with any further 10 relief than granted, and all of which can be addressed on remand.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).