Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03156/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03156-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
All American Semiconductor
Appellee
Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3156

___________

All American Semiconductor, Inc., *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., * [UNPUBLISHED]

National Association, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 16, 2004

Filed: August 3, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., appeals from the district court’s1

 order

granting All American Semiconductor, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment,

contending that the district court incorrectly applied the “strict compliance” standard

for attempts to draw on letters of credit under Minnesota law and that the court should

instead have granted summary judgment in its favor. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 03-3156 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2004 Entry ID: 1794981 
-2-

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Angelo

Iafrate Constr., LLC v. Potashnick Constr., Inc., 370 F.3d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 2004).

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c). We agree with the district court that All American is entitled to summary

judgment if there is no question of fact that its documentary presentation “met

Minnesota’s ‘strict compliance’ standard for letter of credit transactions.” D. Ct.

Order of Jan. 3, 2003, at 3. 

Having reviewed the record and briefs, we agree with the district court’s wellreasoned analysis in its orders of March 7, 2002, January 3, 2003 and July 21, 2003.

Minnesota law requires that the issuer of a letter of credit honor a beneficiary’s draft

presentation if it “appears on its face strictly to comply with the terms and conditions

of the letter of credit,” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 336.5-108(a) (2002), adopting the UCC

concept of strict compliance not as absolute perfectionism, but as complying with

standard practice for issuers. See Minn. Stat. Ann. § 336.5-108, cmt. 1 (2003)

(incorporating the U.C.C. comment); Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corp. v. Bank of

China, 167 F.Supp. 2d 940, 947 (S.D. Tex. 2000) (interpreting language virtually

identical to that of Minnesota law and using a common sense, case-by-case approach

to strict compliance to hold that minor deviations that do not bring into question the

obvious link between the documents presented as a whole do not justify dishonor by

the issuer), aff’d on other grounds, 288 F.3d 262 (5th Cir. 2002). All American’s

draw presentation met that standard because its documentary presentation, when

viewed as a whole, complied with the requirements in the letter of credit, and the

minor discrepancies claimed by Wells Fargo did not justify rejection of the draw.

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3156 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2004 Entry ID: 1794981