192982P.pdf   03/17/2021  Tom Dunne, Jr.  v.  Resource Converting, LLC
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  19-2982
                          and No:  19-3170
                          and No:  19-3271
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Erickson, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   Civil case - Fraud. In the Iowa case on appeal, Resource sued Dunne for 
   breach of contract, claiming he had breached a licensing agreement by 
   failing to pay the full sum due on the license to market a wast recycling 
   system, and Dunne counterclaimed, alleging Resource had fraudulently 
   misrepresented the product and seeking a return of the original licensing 
   fee payment. The matter was tried, and the jury found Dunne had violated 
   the agreement and that Resource had fraudulently misrepresented the 
   system. The jury awarded no compensatory damages to either party, but 
   awarded Dune punitive damages and the court later granted him attorneys' 
   fees and costs. Both parties appeal. Held:(1) the court would not overturn 
   the jury finding that Dunne was not entitled to compensatory damages; 
   (2)under Iowa law, the jury could award Dunne punitive damages without an 
   award of compensatory damages; (3) the punitive damage award was not 
   unconstitutionally excessive under the Due Process Clause; (4) Dunne's 
   remedy at law was adequate, and he was not entitled to an award of damages 
   under his equitable counterclaims; (5) award of $461,408 in attorneys' 
   fees to Dunne affirmed; the district court did not abuse its discretion by 
   reducing Dunne's costs request. In a parallel Missouri action, the 
   district court dismissed Dunne's complaint as barred by the Iowa decision 
   on the theory of claim preclusion and the economic loss doctrine. Held: 
   the district court erred when it applied federal law, rather than Iowa 
   law, to determine whether the claim was precluded; the court further erred 
   in determining Missouri law on the economic loss doctrine would bar 
   Dunne's misrepresentation claims; because the court has revived Dunne's 
   underlying claims, his conspiracy claim should also be reinstated; in 
   light of the court's ruling, the district court's attorneys' fees award to 
   Resource as the prevailing party is set aside.