Advanced Forming Technologies, LLC v Permacast, LLC

Advanced sued Permacast for breach of contract and interference with contract. The district court   granted summary judgment to Permacast on the ground that Advanced had not secured expert witnesses and thus failed to prove damages. The panel reversed. I held that because there was an open ended discovery process in place, it cannot be said that Advanced will never be able to prove damages and there is no deadline to designate experts. Thus, Permacast cannot prove it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and summary judgment must be reversed.

In the Interests of O.T. (A.P. v  State)

A.P appealed the termination of her parental rights. The panel affirmed holding A.P. did not appeal two grounds for termination and thus termination was supported, that the State offered reasonable efforts to reunite A.P. and O.T. which failed because A.P. chose not to complete drug rehabilitation or do the other actions required by the caseworker, and termination is in O.T.’s best interest because O.T. has bonded with his foster family who wants to adopt him.

In the Interest of O.T. (C.H. v State)

C.H. appealed the termination of his parental rights. The panel affirmed holding C.H. failed to challenge the factual findings of the juvenile court, had been discharged from drug treatment for noncompliance and is currently incarcerated and unable to care for O.T.