Appeal dismissed from multiple count lawsuit against former business partner and associates because trial court did not dismiss the plaintiff's cause of action in its entirety. Poppert v. Dicke, S-06-741, 275 Neb. 562 Disgruntled business partner sued other partners and associated professionals for breach of fiduciary duty and plead various claims against several parties. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs suit against the business partner for breach of fiduciary duty and certified it as final, appealable order. However the district court did not dismiss the plaintiff's suit for unjust enrichment and diverting profits. Because some of the remaining claims were identical with the dismissed claims, the district court failed to issue a certified final order. Nebraska Supreme Court dismisses appeal. 25-1315 requires the court to certify as appealable a final order as to a "claim for relief." "Claim for relief" and "cause of action" are synonymous, although theory of recovery is not. A cause of action comprises the common facts that establish the defendant's liability to the plaintiff although the difference between a cause and a theory is not too clear. Although the district court dismissed some of the plaintiff's theories of recovery, it did not dispose entirely of his cause of action against his partner. Therefore the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. A “claim for relief” within the meaning of § 25-1315(1) is equivalent to a separate cause of action, as opposed to a separate theory of recovery. A cause of action consists of the fact or facts which give one a right to judicial relief against another; a theory of recovery is not itself a cause of action. the district court’s order dismisses some of those theories of recovery, i.e., “causes of action” Nos. 1 through 3, but does not dismiss all of them. The district court’s order was not a “‘final order’ . . . as to one or more but fewer than all of the causes of action.”

Nebraska Supreme Court agrees that the Worker Compensation Court may grant default judgments under § 48-162.03(1) but the party moving for a default judgment must give the defaulted party notice of the motion under Worker Compensation Court rule 3. Cruz-Morales v. Swift Beef Co., S-07-812, 275 Neb. 407 The plaintiff sued the Defendant Swift Beef for a work injury and Swift received proper service of process. Swift failed to answer and the plaintiff moved for a default judgment but sent the notice to the wrong address for the Defendant's third party administrator. "we (under 48-162.03) conclude that the Workers’ Compensation Court has statutory authority to enter default judgments, however the Plaintiff needed to send proper notice to the defendant. Worker Compensation Court rule 3 which requires notice of the motion is not more restrictive than Supreme Court pleading rule 5 which does not require notice of a default judgment in general civil actions, see Phillips v. Monroe Auto Equip. Co., 251 Neb. 585, 558 N.W.2d 799 (1997) {worker compensation court rules may not be more restrictive than civil court rules as to admitting evidence}.

Parties to a dispute over the Salem Grain Company won nearly $12000 attorneys' fees for the defendants' failure to comply with discovery orders. The appealing parties' appeal is dismissed as neither a final nor a collateral order. Frederick v. Seeba, A-06-272, 16 Neb. App. 373`an order imposing a money judgment for attorney fees and expenses for discovery violations pursuant to Nebraska’s discovery rule 37(a)(4) does not affect a “substantial right” as required by § 25-1902 RRS Neb.to seek review of the appellant's discovery sanctions, they must meet three elements for their appeal to come within the collateral order doctrine: “[T]he order must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively not reviewable on appeal from a final judgment.”Hallie Mgmt. Co. v. Perry, 272 Neb. at 85-86, 718 N.W.2d at 535 (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 98 S. Ct. 2454, 57 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1978)). the Seebas cannot meet the third condition of the collateral order doctrine, i.e., that the order is effectively not reviewable upon final judgment. Once a final determination of the merits of the case has been decided, theSeebas can appeal the imposition of attorney fees and expenses at that time, and if the appellate court determines that an error was made, the remedies available to theSeebas after appeal from a final judgment are sufficient to adequately protect their interests.

Nebraska motor vehicle accident guest statute § 25-21,237 (Reissue 1995) applies in action filed in district court between Nebraska residents even though accident occurred in Colorado where no guest statute applied. Heinze v. Heinze, S-06-722, 274 Neb. 595. The Nebraska Supreme Court rejects married plaintiff's contention that the district court should have allowed his action against his wife for injuries arising from an automobile accident they had in Colorado. The Supreme Court, per Justice Wright holds that Nebraska law, including Nebraska's guest statute (§ 25-21,237 (Reissue 1995)) would apply to the action husband-plaintiff filed against his wife in York County, their domicile. Justice Gerrard puts his two cents worth in,his concurring opinion, reminding the plaintiff that his attorneys should have raised one of Gerrard's pet constitutional issues, that § 25-21,237 is unconstitutional. See Le v. Lautrup, 271 Neb. 931, 716 N.W.2d 713 (2006) (Gerrard, J., dissenting). Too bad Justice Gerrard says, the plaintiff's lawyers failed to raise the constitutional issue.

Nice recovery for the losing attorney who didn't bother to defend the summary judgment motion against his client: Plaintiff's deceased husband suffered paralyzing injuries in an ATV accident while on a work detail cutting and spraying weeds on a Natural Resources District bike trail. Weichman v. Lower Platte South NRD, A-05-1147, 15 Neb. App. 946. At the time the deceased husband was an inmate at the Lincoln Community Corrections Center. Plaintiff representing the estate continued their suit against both the Natural Resources District as a political subdivision tort claim action action and the Nebraska Department of Corrections as a state tort claim action. The Lancaster County District Court dismissed the the Department of Corrections during a summary judgment hearing that the plaintiff's attorney did not attend. The district court ruled the Nebraska State Tort Claim Act's discretionary function exception(§ 81-8,219(1)) immunized the State from responsibility for the inmate's injuries. Plaintiff appealed the Department of Corrections dismissal as a final order. Nebraska Court of Appeals, and reverses. "Even though Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at the summary judgment hearing and to contradict or contest DCS’ evidence, there are a number of unresolved facts—remembering that on summary judgment, we view the evidence most favorably to Weichman...(the) evidence suggests that contrary to a statement in (the correctional officer’s) affidavit, his responsibility on June 6, 2002, was not limited to “security,” and creates an issue of material fact (as to whether the discretionary function exception applied). "if the corrections officer trains instructs and supervises the inmates (on the work detail) for NR D, then whether the discretionary function or duty exception from liability applies is a material issue of fact for trial."

Nebraska Supreme Court reverses Thomas County District Court's summary judgment ordering removal of directors of cattle feeding corporation. Neiman v. Tri R Angus, S-06-118, 274 Neb. 252. District court judge ordered corporate officers removed following dispute between shareholders and the directors. Although the defendants did not offer evidence disputing removal, the Supreme Court reverses the removal under 21-2086 proceedings. Because the statute includes grounds for fraud and because fraud requires heightened proof of intent, the Supreme Court concludes all grounds for removal of directors will require heightened proof. "Nebraska's statute on judicial removal of corporate directors, § 21-2086, is an extraordinary remedy. It is not for resolving mere differences of opinion between the shareholders and the directors regarding their exercise of business judgment. Instead, it is an unusual remedy that is to be granted only upon the shareholder’s production of sufficient evidence demonstrating that the director has engaged in “fraudulent or dishonest conduct or gross abuse of authority or discretion with respect to the corporation.” § 21-2086."

Another win for trial lawyer justice in Nebraska: Nebraska Supreme Court reverses summary judgment in suit against U-Haul by user who mishandled the truck's loading ramp. Erickson v. U-Haul International, S-05-1163, 274 Neb. 236The plaintiff's parents rented a U-Haul moving van to move from Iowa to Herman, Nebraska in Washington County. The Plaintiff tried to extend the loading ramp while her father moved the truck, but the truck jumped suddenly and pinned her leg. She sued the U-Haul Center of Omaha and also the umbrella U-Haul company. District court dismissed the case against U-Haul Center finding no duty to warn and dismissed against U-Haul parent company finding no personal jurisdiction. Even though the Nebraska Unicameral has already addressed truck leasing liability issues in 25-21,239, the Supreme Court (J Connolly) predictably reverses. So why is this worthless case going back for trial? Who is going to win a negligence case when a girl and her parents are mishandling heavy equipment? This case wont go to trial and someone will pocket a nice settlement since the Supreme Court has shut off the defendants' threat of a quick dismissal.

No complaint amendment to add promissory estoppel three after the plaintiff dropped it from his breach of employment contract lawsuit. Keating v. Ironwood Golf and Country Club voluntarily withdrew his promissory Bank, supra, if the district court had allowed (Not designated for permanent publication). Premier Omaha area golf club Ironwood Country Club hired Bradley Keating to be its chief operating officer in April 2001 with a five year employment contract, subject to the parties reaching within 90 days of starting employment agreement on work performance standards. Apparently Mr. Keating ran afoul of some big names, including Howard Hawks and Thomas Fitzgerald. The club terminated him after 90 days. Keating sued for breach of contract and for breached promissory estoppel. After Ironwood filed its initial demurrer to the promissory estoppel count, Keating withdrew this from his pleading. But nearly three years later in response to Ironwoods motion for a complete summary judgment he sought to reinstate it. Nebraska Court of Appeals, unpublished decision, affirms summary judgment. "Keating sought to change his lawsuit from a straightforward breach of a written contract action to a promissory estoppel cause of action only after the hearing on Ironwood’s motion for summary judgment, nearly 3 years after Keatingestoppel cause of action. Similarly to Cimino v. FirsTierKeating to amend his pleading, the basis of his lawsuit would have been significantly altered after 3 years of proceeding to defend a case based only on a breach of contract cause of action. For these reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Keating’s motion for leave to file an amended petition to change his theory of recovery from a breach of contract claim to one of promissory estoppel."

Malpractice lawyers will sue other lawyers for settling cases and also for taking cases to court. Nebraska Supreme Court (J. Wright) reinstates $1.6 million malpractice verdict against Omaha's McGrath North law firm in favor of former client LaVista Keno operator Richard Bellino and his trial attorney David Domina. Bellino v. McGrath North, S-06-130, 274 Neb. 130. Lawyers beware of advising clients to accept settlements that another lawyer will say were too low, conversely don't advise a client to beat a settlement offer at trial. The Douglas County jury ruled that McGrath North's client received bad legal advice on how to dump his business partner in their Keno business and then that he would win in court. Although the district court agreed that the defendants' continuous representation through the clients unsuccessful appeal against the former partner's business opportunity lawsuit was timely and that the defendants were negligent , the district judge reduced the jury's $1.6 million to $224K. The district judge reasoned that since the client would owe his partner something eventually, no damage resulted from the attorney's conduct. Supreme Court disagrees. "After (plaintiff) did not accept (former partner's) offer, (Plaintiff's) appeal continued until this court affirmed the judgment in favor of (former partner). The jury could reasonably have concluded that but for the negligence of McGrath North, Plaintiff would have paid substantially less than $3.1 million to attain his stated goals."

Nebraska Supreme Court in two cases arising from the Amwest liquidation that started six years ago rules against landlord who sought satisfaction from defaulted tenants performance bond, but rules in favor of Florida general contractor who said it never received notice of the Amwest liquidation proceedings.

• State ex rel. Wagner v. Amwest Security Ins. Co., S-05-1267, 274 Neb. 110 (Strategic Capital Resources, Inc.)
• State ex rel. Wagner v. Amwest Security Ins. Co., S-06-049, 274 Neb. 121(Sunhouse International)

The Supreme Court affirms denying the claims of Strategic Capital Resources against its tenants performance bond to satisfy rental payments. Turns out the tenant-principal defaulted three days after the Insurance Department's notice that it would cancel the Amwest bond. "Each of the four lease bonds contained explicit conditions that must be complied with before A mwest’s liability under the agreements would arise. All four lease bonds required Strategic to provide A mwest written notice of (principal’s) default as a condition precedent to S trategic’s right to payment under the lease bonds. Amwest however did not receive notice of defaults until after cancellation. Strategic may not analogize these cases to cases arising form claims-based insurance policies as bond claims require strict compliance with preconditions for them. In the Sunhouse international case, the Supreme Court rules in favor of the claimant against a defaulted construction performance bond. The evidence showed that Amwest liquidators sent notice to the claimant's former attorneys offices. The claimant disputed that it received notice. Only later did Amwest liquidators produce an affidavit with out supporting documents stating the it did give proper notice. On denovo review Supreme Court discounts the affidavit. "we find the affidavit insufficient proof that, in accordance with § 44-4822, notice was sent to S unhouse’s last known address as reflected in A mwest’s records."

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals finds Plaintiff's railroad ballast machine product liability lawsuit was out of time after Virginia court transferred case to Nebraska. 062641P.pdf 07/25/2007 David Eggleton v. Plasser & Theurer U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 06-2641 District of Nebraska - Omaha Track maintenance worker from Virginia was working the Defendants' Plasser RM-802 ballast cleaning machine . on Burlington Northern railroad tracks in Nebraska and suffered severe injuries while using the machine here in 1998. Within two years he sued Plasser, a German manufacturer in Virginia state court but did not pursue the case. He dismissed the state court action but refiled it within six months in Virginia federal court, taking advantage of the Virginia savings statute, § 8.01-229(E)(3). The district court ruled Virginia did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants but transferred the case to Nebraska federal court, per 28 USC 1406. The Nebraska federal judge allowed the case to proceed and the defendants appealed. Nebraska law does not extend a plaintiff's limitations period after a voluntary dismissal. If the Nebraska limitations period applies, the Plaintiff's complaint is too late. Eighth Circuit reverses, Nebraska limitation period applies. "After filing his claims against Plasser in a timely fashion, Eggleton neglected the case for more than three years. He took a voluntary nonsuit and then re-filed the case six months later. He waited more than one year after re-filing the case to serve Plasser, thus finally giving the defendant formal notice of the pending lawsuit. While all of these actions were apparently permissible under Virginia law, Eggleton’s inertia in pursuing his case against Plasser militates against his claim of injustice in the application of Nebraska law."

Some jurors used a slide rule and looked up the inflation rate to help them determine how much to award in wrongful death case.Nebraska Supreme Court affirms verdict of only $46k for wrongful death of a woman in her late teens. Poppe v. Siefker, S-05-670, 274 Neb. 1 Family members of woman killed in head-on collision on Interstate 80 with suicidal driver sued and the Lancaster County district court jury awarded them $46k. Plaintiffs appealed arguing the verdict was too low and the result of jurors' improper reliance on outside aids to help them calculate the present value of their award. Nebraska Supreme Court agrees that the plaintiffs failed to present clear and convincing evidence that some jurors' use of a financial slide rule and inflation rate on a post-it note presented a reasonable likelihood that the extraneous materials prejudiced the plaintiff. Although Nebraska jury instructions ask jurors to reduce their damage awards to present value, the instructions don't tell jurors how to do it. In this case, neither side offered evidence on how to do this either. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirms the verdict because although the slide rule and inflation rate were not in evidence, the court cant determine whether the jurors' use of the aids hurt or even helped the Plaintiffs. "Given that the jury was not provided any evidence on present value, nor instructed as to how present value was to be calculated, the personal financial slide calculator and the handwritten inflation rate could not have contradicted any of the evidence presented at trial. Nor could the jury have given undue weight to these items, while disregarding other evidence adduced at trial, because there simply was no evidence presented on this issue."

Finally a win for the dad: Nebraska Supreme Court (CJ Heavican) reverses Lincoln County District Judge Murphy's order for joint custody when neither party requested joint custody. Supreme Court finds parties have a due process right to have notice of potential rulings from the court. Zahl v. Zahl, S-06-1123Somehow the supreme court reversed the Learned Hand of the Plains, District Judge John Murphy. The parents disputed custody of their one child, born June 2004. They were married in July 2004. Father worked for Union Pacific running trains to Marysville Kansas. Mother worked for the sheriff's department. The parties separated only several months after the child was born, and mother had a child a few years older from a prior marriage, and at the time mother was in court disputing custody of that child. The court finally ordered joint custody but neither party had requested it, and at a schedule that apparently did not fit the father's railroad schedule well. Father appeals. Supreme Court reverses. When ordering joint custody under Nebraska statute § 42-364(5) (Cum. supp. 2006), a district court must specifically find that joint custody is in a child’s best interests. the district court failed to make that finding in the dissolution decree. Further, because neither party had requested joint physical custody, the evidence presented at trial was limited to which parent should have sole custody. We conclude that under this circumstance, the court must conduct a separate hearing on joint physical custody before ordering such, and that its order must specifically find that joint physical custody is in the child’s best interests. "A trial court’s authority under § 42-364(5) to order joint physical custody when the parties have not requested it must be exercised in a manner consistent with due process requirements...fundamental fairness requires that...when a trial court determines at a general custody hearing that joint physical custody is, or may be, in a child’s best interests, but neither party has requested this custody arrangement, the court must give the parties an opportunity to present evidence on the issue before imposing joint custody"

Follow up: WE'RE NUMBER ONE! Legal reform activists proclaim Nebraska most business friendly legal climate in the country. We have a "rule of law" judiciary (for now) and an attorney general who is more interested in law enforcement than taking down businesses. But I'm not sure if the authors of the report took into account our justice crusaders Connolly and Gerrard.. Overlawyered.com.

Risky Business: The Annual Boardroom Guide to Litigation in the 50 States ranks state legal environments with economics, real world corporate experience and input from state legal reform experts and puts Nebraska and Virginia on top. Why does Nebraska come out on top? "Nebraska enjoys the top ranking for its favorable litigation climate. Its liability laws lead to fair and predictable litigation results. Nebraska law does not allow punitive damages, places limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, has a 10-year statute of repose for product liability lawsuits, and does not allow joint liability for non-economic damages. The Supreme Court is led by a rule-of-law majority and Attorney General Jon Bruning is a staunch defender of the rule of law. Nebraska’s liability climate is conducive to growth and job creation..

Nebraska Supreme Court reverses Hall county district court's ruling that social worker did not have qualified immunity after police arrested a parent she was investigating for child abuse. Supreme Court takes case because a public officer who is a defendant in a Section 1983 civil rights action and claims qualified immunity may seek immediate appeal of an unfavorable trial court ruling on her qualified immunity if the decision involved solely legal questions. Williams v. Baird, S-06-889, 273 Neb. 977.

the order of the district court denying baird’s claims ofqualified immunity is not a final order under § 25-1902. However, under the collateral order doctrine,we are permitted tor eview baird’s qualified immunity claim withrespect to Williams’ firs tclaim.as such, we conclude that baird is entitled to qualifiedi mmunity on that claim, as Williams failedto allege a legally cognizable constitutional claim. We accord ingly reverse the district court’s denial of baird’s claim ofQualified immunity.

Follow up on why the pedestrian crossed the road: Nebraska Supreme Court wont let attorneys pocket a quick settlement from a co-defendant, dismiss him from the case and then go after the deep pockets for the entire case. Tadros v. City of Omaha, S-05-1538, 273 Neb. 935 The plaintiff was injured crossing at the crosswalk West Omaha. A motorist ran her over and she sustained serious injuries. The plaintiff filed a political subdivision tort claim against the city and sued the driver, but later settled and dismissed the driver for $35000. The plaintiffs injuries apparently exceeded $1million. Because poltical subdivisons are liable for up to $1milliion the court reduced the judgment. The trial court determined the parties responsibility for the accident to be 50% City, 30% driver, 20% plaintiff. City appealed when the court took off only the $35000 settlement and not the driver's 30%. Supreme court reverses because under §25-21,185.11(1) RRS Neb a defendant's obligation for an accident proportional to his percentage of fault in the accident, inlcuding the fault of dismissed defendants. Under the contributory negligence statutory scheme in nebraska,joint tort-feasors who are“defendants”in an action “involving more than one defendant” share joint and several liability to the claimant for economic damages. they are liable for the entire amount of the claimant’s economic damages which are not chargeable to the claimant,so long as the claimant’s contributory negligence is not equal to or greater than the total negligence of all persons against whom recovery is sought. but,when the claimant settles with a joint tort-feasor,the claimant forfeits that joint and several liability. the claimant cannot recover from the nonsettling joint tort-feas o r more than that tort-feasor’sp roportionate share in order to compensate for the fact that the claimant made settlement with another that may prove to be inadequate.

Supreme Court cautions parties to be more diligent in making jurisdictional challenges especially when they are upstairs in the big court. In two cases involving probated estates the Nebraska Supreme Court allows a related case to proceed in the district court but refuses to revoke an informally appointed personal representative's status for the estate of a decedent who had died in 1987, Washington v. Conley, S-06-428, 273 Neb. 908 In re Estate of Nemetz, S-06-487, 273 Neb. 918, The Supreme Court criticizes the Legislatures giving exclusive jurisdiction of probate cases to the county courts under § 24-517 (Cum. Supp. 2006), while Neb. Const. art. v, § 9 grants the district courts common law and equity jurisdiction. In Washington the Supreme court reverses the district court's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a constructive trust case that appeared to be related to a probate case in county court. The District court failed to consider the jurisdictional attack as a facial one under Rule 12b1, depending solely on the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint and thus in finding that it lacked jurisdiction, the district court erroneously relied upon information not found in Washington’s complaint, specifically, the assertions of counsel that the property at issue in this case is subject to a separate and contemporaneous probate proceeding in county court. The supreme court rejected the objections of the decedent's children to the second wife's appointment as informal personal representative nearly 20 years after the decedent's death in Estate of Nemetz. Although it appears unseemly for the widow to wait 20 years to probate an estate and shut off the children, the court concluded "the county court (properly) applied § 30-2454(b) finding no cause to remove Widow as personal representative. based on an examination for error appearing on the record."

Nebraska Supreme Court (J Miller-Lerman) reverses doctor's verdict against Norfolk Faith Regional Hospital for over $1.3 million because the court instructed the jury that the doctor was an employee of the Hospital rather than an independent contractor. Domjan v. Faith Regional Health Servs., S-05-1463, 273 Neb. 877. The court instructed the jury that the parties were in an employment relationship and further that termination was only for good cause rather than cause. The court suggested that the instruction's suggestion that the doctor was an employee and not a contractor probably swayed the jury to the doctor's favor. Further the jury instruction used the term good cause, one for employment relationships rather than "cause" from the contractor agreement, further misleading the jury. Employment good cause is the standard for a reasonable employer to dismiss and employee while contractual cause is material breach or default...in light of the actual custom of persons in the performance of contracts similar to the one involved in the specific case.” Phipps v. Skyview Farms, 259 Neb. 492, 499, 610 N.W.2d 723,730-31 (2000). Reversed for a new trial

Nebraska Supreme Court advises District Courts not to make extra work for it by routinely certifying Section 25- 1315(1) piece-meal final orders for appeal. Supreme Court dismisses appeal from Plaintiff severely injured in 1998 on Interstate 680- while it was under construction because the appeal concerned only part of his case against the road sign contractor and the district court abused its discretion in allowing the Plaintiff to appeal on just this part of his case. Cerny v. Todco Barricade Co., S-05-877 Plaintiff was severely injured in rear end collision on a part of Douglas county I680 that was under construction. He settled claims with the other driver, the state and its main contractor. He proceeded against the Road Sign subcontractor for his own claim and the assigned claims of the other defendants. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the road sign contractor only on the contribution and indemnity claims of the state and its contractor. The plaintiff asked the court to certify the summary judgment as final under 25-1315(1) and the District Court entered final judgment. The sign company cross appealed the court's denying its motion for summary judgment against the 2nd driver. Supreme Court dismisses appeal finding that the trial court should not have so easily found the contribution/indemnity claims were final orders. "§ 25-1315(1) was intended to prevent interlocutory appeals, not make them easier...Therefor certification of a final judgment must be reserved for the “unusual case” in which the costs and risks of multiplying the number of proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early and separate judgment as to some claims or parties.29 the power § 25-1315(1)confers upon the trial judge should only be used “‘“in the infrequent harsh case

Nebraska Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion agrees that summary judgment against class action plaintiffs who sued Ameritrade for failing to provide real time options' quotes should stand. Appeals Court agrees that Ameritrade did not agree to provide real options quotes to subscribers who paid $20 per month for real time stock only quotes.

Green v. Ameritrade, A-05-651

Appeals Court rejects plaintiffs action because Ameritrade did not promise in its information contract and the relevant NASDAQ agreement to provide real time options quotes, just real time quotes for actual stocks, even though the option information server was on Ameritrade premises. The appeals court additionally notes the Plaintiff did not allege any trading losses from the incomplete information. Giving the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, the Ameritrade trading handbook that mentioned options quote did not obligate Ameritrade to provide real time options quotes, even if you assume the handbook was a contractual document. (Plaintiff) contends that because the handbook contains information regarding options trading and the real time quote service, the real time quote service includes option quotes. He is basically arguing that because the words “options” and “real time” are contained within the same document, one must infer that Ameritrade promised real time quotes for options to subscribers of the real time quote service. We conclude that such an inference is illogical. Even when the Trading Account Handbook is considered in conjunction with the agreements governing the contractual relationship, there is no basis to conclude that the handbook promises real time option quotes to real time service subscribers. Accordingly, even if the Trading Account Handbook was part of the contract between (Plaintiff) and Ameritrade, it does not contain a promise by Ameritrade to provide real time quotes for options