« About this blog - ILB has agreed to act as a host for the RealMatch legal job network | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 5 NFP) »

Friday, October 24, 2008

Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides one Indiana case today

In Interactive Intelligence v. Keycorp (SD Ind., Judge McKinney), a 10-page opinion, Judge Evans writes:

Interactive Intelligence, Inc. filed this action against KeyCorp, KeyBank, and Adam Ravens (a former employee of KeyBank), alleging various contractual and tort theories of liability arising out of foreign exchange (FX) currency transactions. The district court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment; Interactive appeals. * * *

One problem in this case, which is not adequately addressed by the parties, is what law applies to the claims. On the claims based on the supposed employment con- tract, KeyBank says the parties agree that Ohio law gov- erns; however, Interactive cites the law of Connecticut and New Jersey. KeyBank says that on all other claims Indiana law controls; however, while Interactive relies on Indiana law on the claims based on breach of a fiduciary duty and of oral contract, it says Ohio law applies to the negligence claims. Like much else in this case, what law should apply is unclear, but the deficiencies in the plaintiff’s case are clear under the laws of either Ohio or Indiana. We will proceed with our de novo review. Gillespie v. Equifax Info. Servs., L.L.C., 484 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2007). * * *

The supposed oral contract is too vague to be enforceable. See Pepsi-Cola Gen. Bottlers, Inc. v. Woods, 440 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). An agreement to work out more definite terms at some future time is not enforceable. Wolvos v. Meyer, 668 N.E.2d 671 (Ind. 1996). That is all that the evidence can possibly show in this case, and accord- ingly there is no enforceable oral contract.

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment dismiss- ing Interactive’s claims against all defendants. There is no need, then, to consider the appeal relating to dismissal of requests for class action status.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 24, 2008 01:02 PM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions