Latest News

Case Summaries

Admiralty

[12/05] In re GlobalSantaFe Corp.
In an employee's suit alleging injuries from exposure to asbestos and silica while working on a vessel, petition for writ of mandamus directing the silica multidistrict litigation pretrial court to vacate its order remanding the case to the original trial court is conditionally granted where Texas Civil Practice and Remedies rules were not preempted by the federal Jones Act, and the case could be heard in the pretrial MDL court.

[06/04] People v. Laborde
In a prosecution for drug possession, denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence is affirmed over claims that a search of his stateroom on a cruise ship by a customs officer, after the ship docked at the conclusion of a foreign cruise, was conducted without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in violation of Fourth Amendment. Although the underlying search in the present case was defensible as a "routine border search", wherein reasonable suspicion was not required, there may be circumstances under which the search of a passenger cabin at the border might be deemed non-routine.

More...

Agriculture

[12/24] McGuire v. US
The Tucker Act's sovereign immunity waiver is limited to suits filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims. Consequently, the district court in this case lacked jurisdiction to entertain a bankruptcy debtor's Tucker Act claims.

[12/24] Barreto-Barreto v. US
Petitions under 28 U.S.C. section 2255 for relief from convictions for making false statements in connection with claimed property losses due to Hurricane Georges are denied where: 1) the petitions were time-barred; 2) claimed exceptions under the doctrines of equitable tolling and actual innocence did not apply; and 3) petitioners failed to establish eligibility for coram nobis relief.

More...

Banking Law

[12/31] Alpine Bank v. Hubbell
In a lawsuit arising after plaintiffs failed to repay a construction loan made by plaintiff-bank, summary judgment against defendants-homeowners on all claims and on their counterclaims is affirmed where: 1) a contract counterclaim, based on an alleged breach of the contractually implied duty of good faith and fair dealing arising from bank's failure to oversee the construction, was barred by a provision in the parties' agreement; 2) for purposes of negligent-misrepresentation counterclaims, one alleged misrepresentation regarding the contractor was nonactionable puffery and the others lacked the requisite state of mind; 3) bank did not have a duty to disclose negative information regarding the construction or the contractor; and 4) bank's advertising slogan did not violate the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

[12/30] In re: Marshall
Balance transfers from one credit card to another, made by debtors during the ninety-day period prior to the filing of their Chapter 7 petition, are preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. section 547(b). Such payments constitute transfers of "an interest of the Debtor in property," because the debtor exercises control over the loaned proceeds even if he is never in actual possession of them, and such transactions deplete the bankruptcy estate.

More...

Asset Forfeiture

[10/30] US v. Levesque
A forfeiture order for $3,068,000 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, is vacated and remanded where: 1) 21 U.S.C. section 853 authorizes money judgments; 2) the case is remanded to give district court the opportunity to consider whether and to what extent the ruling in the recent Supreme Court case, US v. Santos, 128 S. Ct. 2020 (2008), affects the forfeiture determination in this case; and 3) the case is remanded for lower court to consider whether the imposition of the forfeiture violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment in light of recent pertinent case law.

[10/20] US v. One Star Class Sloop Sailboat Built in 1930 with Hull Number 721
Following a decision finding that the government failed to take reasonable steps to notify a part-owner of a vessel of its intent to forfeit, the damage award of a share of net sales and attorneys' fees is affirmed as modified where the district court erred only in using an impermissible factor to justify an across-the-board disallowance of two-thirds of the time that one attorney claimed to have spent in litigating the default judgment.

More...

Civil Rights

[01/06] David Patterson v. Hudson Area Schools
In a suit alleging that a school district violated Title IX by allowing the plaintiffs' son to be harassed by other students, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where the plaintiffs have established that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant-district was deliberately indifferent to the student-on-student sexual harassment of their son.

[01/05] Jones v. Calvert Group, Ltd.
Terminated employee's retaliation claim was improperly dismissed by the district court for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff is excused from exhausting her retaliation claim, which alleges ongoing retaliation for the filing of her previous EEOC claim, because the alleged retaliatory termination was merely the predictable culmination of the employer's alleged retaliatory conduct.

More...

Commercial Law

[01/06] In Re: Smart World Techs., LLC
In the bankruptcy context, pre-approval of a fee agreement under 11 U.S.C. section 328(a) depends on the totality of the circumstances, including whether the professional's application, or the court's order, referenced section 328(a), and whether the court evaluated the propriety of the fee arrangement before granting final, and not merely preliminary, approval. In the circumstances of this case, the circuit court rules that: 1) the bankruptcy court's Retention Order was a pre-approval within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. section 328(a); and 2) no subsequent developments warranted modifying the terms of appellee-firm's retention.

[01/06] CP Solutions PTE, Ltd. v. Gen. Elec. Co.
In a commercial contract dispute, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed and remanded where: 1) contrary to the district court's ruling, one of the defendants was not an indispensable party; and 2) thus, that defendant could be dropped as a party so as to preserve diversity jurisdiction.

More...

Property Law & Real Estate

[12/31] Alpine Bank v. Hubbell
In a lawsuit arising after plaintiffs failed to repay a construction loan made by plaintiff-bank, summary judgment against defendants-homeowners on all claims and on their counterclaims is affirmed where: 1) a contract counterclaim, based on an alleged breach of the contractually implied duty of good faith and fair dealing arising from bank's failure to oversee the construction, was barred by a provision in the parties' agreement; 2) for purposes of negligent-misrepresentation counterclaims, one alleged misrepresentation regarding the contractor was nonactionable puffery and the others lacked the requisite state of mind; 3) bank did not have a duty to disclose negative information regarding the construction or the contractor; and 4) bank's advertising slogan did not violate the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

[01/05] Episcopal Church Cases
In a property dispute arising after a parish disaffiliated itself from the Episcopal Church after the national church ordained an openly gay man as a bishop, a court of appeals decision reversing a ruling in favor of parish defendants is affirmed where: 1) the action was not subject to a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (anti-SLAPP); and 2) on the merits and applying a "neutral principles of law" approach, the higher church authorities and not the parish defendants own the disputed property.

More...

Constitutional Law

[01/06] Metro Lights, L.L.C. v. City of Los Angeles
In a suit claiming that a city's ban on offsite commercial advertising violated the First Amendment in light of the city's contract with a private party permitting sale of such advertising at city-owned transit stops, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where the ban was not underinclusive and was narrowly tailored to meet the government's aims.

[12/18] Bielanski v. County of Kane
Civil rights suit brought by a girl falsely accused of molesting a child was properly dismissed where: 1) her summons before the juvenile court and subjection to minimal pre-trial restrictions did not constitute a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes; and 2) the government's decision to go to trial would not have been affected by the evidence allegedly withheld by the prosecution.

More...

Contracts

[01/06] CP Solutions PTE, Ltd. v. Gen. Elec. Co.
In a commercial contract dispute, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed and remanded where: 1) contrary to the district court's ruling, one of the defendants was not an indispensable party; and 2) thus, that defendant could be dropped as a party so as to preserve diversity jurisdiction.

[01/06] Edwards v. Kia Motors of Am., Inc.
Mutual release agreement between an auto dealer and the manufacturer, in which Plaintiffs relinquished all existing legal claims against the manufacturer for valid consideration, is enforceable and not prohibited by the Alabama Motor Vehicle Franchise Act. Plaintiffs' various common law claims were correctly dismissed because they do not fall within the limited exceptions to their release agreement.

More...

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[01/06] In Re: Smart World Techs., LLC
In the bankruptcy context, pre-approval of a fee agreement under 11 U.S.C. section 328(a) depends on the totality of the circumstances, including whether the professional's application, or the court's order, referenced section 328(a), and whether the court evaluated the propriety of the fee arrangement before granting final, and not merely preliminary, approval. In the circumstances of this case, the circuit court rules that: 1) the bankruptcy court's Retention Order was a pre-approval within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. section 328(a); and 2) no subsequent developments warranted modifying the terms of appellee-firm's retention.

[01/05] Episcopal Church Cases
In a property dispute arising after a parish disaffiliated itself from the Episcopal Church after the national church ordained an openly gay man as a bishop, a court of appeals decision reversing a ruling in favor of parish defendants is affirmed where: 1) the action was not subject to a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (anti-SLAPP); and 2) on the merits and applying a "neutral principles of law" approach, the higher church authorities and not the parish defendants own the disputed property.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[01/06] US v. Skilling
Former Enron CEO's conviction for conspiracy, securities fraud, and related charges is affirmed, but his sentence is vacated and remanded where the court incorrectly applied an enhancement for substantially jeopardizing a "financial institution." Enron's Retirement Plans are not "financial institutions" as that phrase is used in U.S.S.G. section 2F1.1.

[01/06] US v. Uddin
A sentence for food stamp fraud and theft of public property is affirmed where, despite the absence of data as to the exact amount of loss, the district court's loss calculation was a reasonable estimate of the loss caused by the defendant, and its forfeiture calculation was not plainly erroneous.

More...

ERISA

[12/24] McCauley v. First Unum Life Ins. Co.
In a challenge to defendent-insurer's denial of plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is reversed and remanded where: 1) in light of the Supreme Court decision in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan administrator abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's claim; 2) the administrator had a conflict of interest because it had both the discretionary authority to determine the validity of the employee's claim and paid the benefits under the policy; 3) a reasonable trier of fact would conclude that defendant-insurer's denial of long-term disability was arbitrary and capricious; and 4) plaintiff was entitled to benefits and interest running from September 18, 1995, the date on which defendant-insurer rejected plaintiff's appeal.

[12/16] Cole v. ArvinMeritor, Inc.
In an action under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and ERISA brought by retired employees and their union against Rockwell International Corporation and its successor companies to enforce what plaintiffs claimed was a promise by defendants to provide retirees and their surviving spouses with lifetime healthcare benefits, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where the district court correctly found that the applicable collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) contained such enforceable promises.

More...

Environmental Law

[12/29] People v. Roscoe
Following judgment finding defendants jointly and severally liable for penalties pursuant to laws governing underground storage of hazardous substances, judgment against defendant is affirmed where the responsible corporate officer doctrine applies to Health and Safety Code section 25299(a)(6) of the tank laws and thus subjects to liability as an "operator" a corporate officer who had "a responsible share in the furtherance of the transaction which the statute outlaws", even where the corporation itself was also found to be the operator.

[12/29] Freeman v. Blue Ridge Paper Prods., Inc.
The Class Action Fairness Act prevents plaintiffs from artificially structuring their suits to avoid federal jurisdiction. There is no colorable basis for dividing this suit into five separate water-pollution nuisance claims, each covering a successive six-month time period and seeking 4.9 million dollars in damages, other than to frustrate CAFA.

More...

Family Law

[12/31] In re: Belcher
District court erred in allowing bankrupt husband to claim a homestead exemption in marital home because wife's name alone appeared on the title. Husband's potential equitable property interests in the home under divorce law, and his "possessory interest" in the family residence as spouse of the homeowner, were insufficient to permit him to claim the homestead exemption.

[12/23] Jose O. v. The Superior Court of San Diego County
In a family law matter, petition for review of decision denying petitioner-father reunification services is denied where father made no showing that the court abused its discretion by not providing reunification services for him after finding section 361.5(b)(6) applied.

More...

Ethics & Professional Responsibility

[01/06] In re: Linda S. Cook
An order permanently disbarring an attorney from the practice of law before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio is affirmed where the court lacks jurisdiction to consider directly whether the attorney's state disbarment proceedings violated her due process rights, and where nothing in the record supports the attorney's claim that due process violations in her state disbarment proceedings tainted the district court's proceedings.

[12/18] Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 06-249 Re: Allen
Recommendation of public reprimand for a judge in the First District Court of Appeal is approved. The judge was properly found to have violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by clearly implying, in a concurring opinion, that his colleague had cast a corrupt vote. (Corrected opinion)

More...

Health Law

[01/05] Ashley County v. Pfizer, Inc.
In a suit by Arkansas counties against manufacturers and distributors of products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine seeking recovery of costs stemming from the methamphetamine epidemic in the state, grant of defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is affirmed where: 1) the circumstances connecting the sales of cold medication to the provision of government services were simply too attenuated to give rise to an implied contract between the manufacturers and county providers to state a cause of action for unjust enrichment; 2) common law nuisance and Arkansas statutory claims failed for lack of proximate causation.

[01/05] C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp.
Trial court erred in sustaining demurrer to complaint against medical center for sexual harassment under Civil Code section 51.9 and for the negligent hiring, supervision and retention of nursing assistant who sexually assaulted and harassed plaintiff. Court holds that: 1) the judicially-noticed documents offered by defendant do not negate plaintiff's allegations that defendant directly or indirectly employed nursing assistant who sexually harassed plaintiff; 2) plaintiff was not required to allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship between herself and the medical center to state a viable claim for sexual harassment under section 51.9; and 3) complaint contains adequate allegations to hold the defendant corporation liable under section 51.9 for the sexual abuse of plaintiff by its employee.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[01/05] C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp.
Trial court erred in sustaining demurrer to complaint against medical center for sexual harassment under Civil Code section 51.9 and for the negligent hiring, supervision and retention of nursing assistant who sexually assaulted and harassed plaintiff. Court holds that: 1) the judicially-noticed documents offered by defendant do not negate plaintiff's allegations that defendant directly or indirectly employed nursing assistant who sexually harassed plaintiff; 2) plaintiff was not required to allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship between herself and the medical center to state a viable claim for sexual harassment under section 51.9; and 3) complaint contains adequate allegations to hold the defendant corporation liable under section 51.9 for the sexual abuse of plaintiff by its employee.

[12/04] Mercury Ins. Co. v. Pearson
Pedestrian who was struck by an uninsured motorist while crossing an intersection with his fiancée is not entitled to coverage under his fiancée's auto insurance policy. Judgment in favor of auto insurer is affirmed where the policy unambiguously extends uninsured motorist coverage to pedestrians only if they are "named insureds" or their spouses or relatives living in the same household.

More...

Insurance Law

[12/30] Food Pro Int'l, Inc. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
In connection to a tort claim brought by an injured construction worker against plaintiff, judgment in favor of defendant-insurer in plaintiff-insuree's claim for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is reversed where: 1) there was no merit to plaintiff's punitive damages argument; but 2) the trial court erred in finding that defendant-insurer had no duty to defend plaintiff.

[12/29] Sanders v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am.
Insurance company correctly deducted claimant's social security disability payments from the amount owed him under long-term disability insurance. Although his SSDI payments arose from his inability to work due to mental illness, while his long-term disability payments arose from his inability to work due to physical impairments, his inability to work constituted a single disability with both mental and physical causes.

More...

Landlord Tenant

[06/12] 936 Second Avenue L.P. v. Second Corporate Dev. Co., Inc.
In a lease dispute involving the issue of whether the net lease itself must be considered by appraisers in valuing the demised premises for purposes of establishing the net rent for a renewal term of the lease, the Court of Appeals rules that, because the net lease does not exclude its consideration, it must be taken into account in valuing the property.

[06/10] Golden Rain Foundation v. Franz
Judgment finding plaintiff was an "association" subject to the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported that plaintiff was a non-profit association created to manage a common interest development; and 2) the declaration of trust which created the common interest development was effective.

More...

Oil & Gas

[12/30] Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FERC
Petitioner unsuccessfully challenges FERC's approval of the long-term reallocation of power-generating capacity among the affiliates of the Entergy system. The ALJ properly found that: 1) although there was an apparent transfer of costs between New Orleans and Entergy Gulf States, the rise in Gulf States's costs could not be attributed to the reallocation alone; 2) Gulf States was slated for its own long-term allocations in the future; and 3) the "bandwidth remedy" ensures a minimum level of rough equalization of costs.

[12/11] Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees of only $1.00 to the prevailing defendant in a frivolous action brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, where the actual beneficiary of the attorney's fee award was a defendant to which an award could not otherwise have been made.

More...