Case Summaries
Contracts
[05/16]
Adkins v. Mireles
In an appeal arising out of a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement governing employees of Lucky Stores' warehouse, partial summary judgment and jury trial in favor of defendants-union and officers is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in holding that federal law preempted breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims because each implicated the duty of fair representation; 2) it did not err in finding that the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) section 301, preempted plaintiffs' fraud and deceit claim, because the claim cannot be maintained without the court interpreting the provisions of the CBA; 3) RICO claims were preempted under case precedent because plaintiffs alleged an unfair labor practice which is prohibited under the NLRA; and 4) plaintiffs failed to perfect their challenge to an evidentiary decision to exclude evidence regarding a teamster jacket-burning incident.
[05/16]
U.S. ex rel Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.
In a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act, denial of a motion for leave to file an amended complaint and a decision to stay employment claims pending arbitration are affirmed where: 1) a form submitted to the government does not meet the requirements of an objective falsehood under the FCA since it is based on the interpretation of a contract clause; 2) there was no fraudulent inducement since the form submitted to the government was not key in inducing the government to award work to defendant; 3) a third amended complaint failed to plead with the particularity required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 4) relator's claims of retaliatory termination fell within the arbitration clause of their employment contract; 5) the FCA allows for arbitration of termination claims; and 6) the arbitration agreements were enforceable under Texas law.
[05/15]
UMass Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union
In an employer-union dispute wherein the district court upheld an arbitral award in favor of the union but denied the union's request for attorney fees, judgment is affirmed where: 1) the case failed to meet the exceedingly high threshold for judicial interference with arbitral awards; 2) the arbitral award drew "its essence from the collective bargaining agreement"; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the employer's federal claim was sufficiently justified to avoid a payment of attorney's fees.
[05/15]
Greenwood v. New Hampshire Pub. Util. Comm'n
In a case wherein the district court enjoined a state public utilities commission from enforcing an order purportedly issued under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, the judgment is reversed and matter dismissed where: 1) the suit was barred by the statute of limitations; and 2) even if the statute of limitations had not expired, plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief called upon equitable powers of the federal court, and thus it would be inherently inequitable to allow the action to proceed and allow any relief to be granted.
[05/15]
Topps Co., Inc. v. Cadbury Stani S.A.I.C.
In an action alleging breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets involving a chewing gum licensing agreement, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) the licensing agreement was ambiguous as to defendant's entitlement to continual usage of trade secrets after the agreement's terminate date; and 2) extrinsic evidence did not weigh overwhelmingly in defendant's favor to permit a resolution of the agreement's ambiguity by summary judgment.
More...
Family Law
[05/15]
In re Marriage Cases
In an action challenging California's ban on gay marriage, the state Supreme Court rules that the California Constitution must be interpreted to guarantee the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples. The laws at issue are unconstitutional to the extent each statute reserves the designation of "marriage" exclusively to opposite-sex couples and denies same-sex couples access to that designation. The purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California's current marriage statutes, the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage, is not a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause.
[05/12]
In re Marriage of Holtemann
In a dispute about the legal effect of a spousal property transmutation agreement executed during marriage, judgment finding the underlying agreement effectuated a transmutation of husband's separate property into community property is affirmed where: 1) the unambiguous language in the parties' agreement evinced that the husband intended to, and did transmute his separate property; 2) nothing in the record suggested that the husband was misinformed or misled in light of the requisite express, unequivocal declarations of transmutations; and 3) his arguments for disparate treatment of his express declarations of transmutation based on his lack of separate counsel were unavailing, as he was fully advised of the consequences of failing to secure separate counsel, yet chose to proceed.
[05/09]
Baran v. Beaty
In a case involving a mother who removed her minor son from Australia, denial of father's petition for return of the minor pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act of 1988 is affirmed where: 1) based on evidence of the father's propensity for violence, the district court did not err in concluding that returning the minor to Australia would expose him to a grave risk of psychological harm; and 2) because the court was not presented with any proposed undertakings that could ameliorate the risk of harm to the child under the circumstances presented, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for return.
[05/06]
In re Domestic Partnership of Ellis and Arriaga
Under the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 and consistent with the rationale in Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 36 Cal.4th 824 (2005), a person's reasonable, good faith belief that his or her domestic partnership was validly registered with the California Secretary of State entitles that person to the rights and responsibilities of a registered domestic partner, even if the registration never took place.
[05/01]
In re Lesly G.
Denial of a petition for modification, as well as a juvenile court order terminating parental rights under Welf. and Inst. Code section 366.26, are reversed and remanded where the juvenile court failed to hold the required hearing on petitioner's section 388 petition for modification before proceeding to a section 366.26 hearing.
More...
Labor & Employment Law
[05/16]
Dargis v. Sheahan
In an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act and other state laws, dismissal of the claims based on a refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as well as an order directing defendant to hold a hearing on plaintiff's employment status, are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case under the ADA since he could not show that he could perform the essential functions required by the position; 2) an order for a hearing is a proper remedy for a due process violation since awarding damages might produce a windfall for plaintiff; 3) a refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims was proper; and 4) a motion to alter or amend the judgment was properly denied since there is no basis to do so.
[05/16]
Bailey v. USF Holland, Inc.
Judgment for plaintiffs in an action brought under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs were able to establish their hostile work environment claim; 2) defendant did not establish that they took reasonable care to prevent and correct the harassing behavior; and 3) the award to plaintiffs was not excessive since defendant failed to show that the court's computation was erroneous.
[05/16]
Brittingham v. GMC
In a negligence and intentional misconduct case, summary judgment for defendants and denial of a motion to remand the case to state court is vacated and remanded where: 1) there was no federal preemption under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) did not impose a duty on defendant to conduct pre-employment examinations and disclose information; and 2) the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the action since the plaintiff's claims were rooted in state law independent of the CBA.
[05/16]
Zirnhelt v. Michigan Consol. Gas Co.
In a pension-benefits case, dismissal of plaintiff's benefits claim, fiduciary breach claim, and an award to plaintiff based on defendant's failure to provide her with plan documents in a timely manner are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's allegation that the plan language was ambiguous regarding an age clause could not trump the clear language of the plan; 2) there was no abuse of discretion in a denial of plaintiff's equitable estoppel claim since it can only apply to ambiguous plan provisions; 3) plaintiff's fiduciary breach claim was time barred; 4) the district court was correct in concluding that plaintiff was a participant in the plan and therefore entitled to certain documents; and 5) the court did not abuse its discretion as to the $10,500 penalty for a 424 day delay in producing the documents, since the company had a good faith belief that plaintiff had withdrawn her request for the documents.
[05/16]
U.S. ex rel Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.
In a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act, denial of a motion for leave to file an amended complaint and a decision to stay employment claims pending arbitration are affirmed where: 1) a form submitted to the government does not meet the requirements of an objective falsehood under the FCA since it is based on the interpretation of a contract clause; 2) there was no fraudulent inducement since the form submitted to the government was not key in inducing the government to award work to defendant; 3) a third amended complaint failed to plead with the particularity required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 4) relator's claims of retaliatory termination fell within the arbitration clause of their employment contract; 5) the FCA allows for arbitration of termination claims; and 6) the arbitration agreements were enforceable under Texas law.
More...
Tax Law
[05/15]
US v. Wealth & Tax Advisory Servs., Inc.
In a tax case, an order denying the government's petition to enforce a summons issued by the IRS is reversed where: 1) a 29-page "draft opinion letter" sent by taxpayers' accountants to the taxpayers' tax lawyers, containing extensive legal authority and analysis of a complicated tax transaction, constituted a "memorandum"; and 2) thus, even though the letter was characterized as a "draft," it was nevertheless subject to disclosure pursuant to taxpayers' agreement to provide to the IRS "[a]ll opinions and memoranda that provide a legal analysis" of the transaction in question.
[05/13]
S&M Brands, Inc. v. Cooper
In an action involving the Tennessee's Attorney General's enforcement of an amended escrow provision in the Master Settlement Agreement between various states and tobacco manufacturers alleging an impermissible retroactive effect in violation of due process, a summary judgment ruling is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice on grounds of sovereign immunity where: 1) continuous application of the retroactive statute is unlikely; 2) states enjoy immunity in federal court for tax-related claims; 3) the inherent dignity of the sovereign state favors immunity; and 4) the semi-tax nature of the escrow system would better lend itself to a suit in state court.
[05/12]
Kornman & Assocs. Inc. v. US
In a proceeding under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) in which plaintiffs were alleged to have attempted to create an artificial tax loss through the short sale of Treasury Notes and the transfer of partnership interests, summary judgment for the government and dismissal with prejudice of a petition for readjustment of partnership items is affirmed where the obligation to close a short sale is a liability for purposes of I.R.C. section 752.
[05/08]
US v. Mendoza
A conviction for subscribing to a false income tax return is reversed and remanded due to a violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right where, despite defendant's departure to the Philippines, an eight-year delay between defendant's indictment and arrest was a result of the government's negligence, and prejudice is presumed. (Superseding opinion)
[04/29]
Lewis v. Cir.
Tax Court's decision against plaintiff based on a failure to file a timely return, failure to timely pay the amount of tax shown on a federal income tax return, and underpayment of estimated income tax is affirmed where: 1) IRS Form 1040 satisfies the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); 2) OMB #1545-0074 is currently valid; 3) the PRA does not require an expiration date to be printed on any tax information collection forms; 4) the PRA does not require disclosure information to be printed on Form 1040; and 5) sanctions on appeal were unwarranted as to either party.
More...
Commercial Law
[05/16]
General Auto Serv. Station v. City of Chicago
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against the City of Chicago over the removal of an advertising sign, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) as plaintiff's predecessor failed to obtain certain requisite permits in the 1960s and 70s, the sign was not a legal land use that gave rise to a protected property interest; 2) absent such a vested property right, a substantive due process challenge to zoning ordinance amendments failed; 3) plaintiff failed to show how the First Amendment was implicated by the content-neutral provisions of a grandfather provision; and 4) a procedural due process claim was waived.
[05/14]
N. Texas Specialty Physicians
Petition for review of an opinion and order by the FTC regarding allegations of price fixing is granted and the case remanded to modify the order where: 1) the FTC had jurisdiction by virtue of the adverse effects to out-of-state parties; 2) although defendant is a single entity, it is controlled by a group of competitors with substantially similar economic interests; 3) a quick-look analysis was appropriate since the anticompetitive effects were obvious; 4) denial of a discovery motion did not violate due process; and 5) a subsection of the remedial order was overly broad and internally inconsistent.
[05/13]
N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica
In an action brought by a developer against the city of Pacifica involving a proposed condominium project, dismissal of developer's substantive due process claim is affirmed, but an order holding city liable for an equal protection violation is reversed and the resultant damages awards vacated where: 1) the developer was not entitled to judgment on an equal protection claim, as the city did not intentionally treat it differently from any other developer; and 2) a due process claim should not be resurrected because developer did not allege any irrational delay in the city's approval of its permits.
[05/13]
United Stars Indus., Inc. v. Plastech Engineered Prods., Inc.
In an action over monies owed, judgment in favor of plaintiff and sanctions imposed against defendant's attorneys are affirmed where: 1) the compromise that was reached after the initial dispute over pricing and monies owed included defendant's overcharge claims; 2) the contract allowed plaintiff to pass on an increase in costs due to the use of additional materials other than nickel through a surcharge; 3) defendant was liable to pay for the entire cost of the materials bought even though some of it was lost during the production process; and 4) the district judge did not abuse her discretion by sanctioning defendant's lawyers for making unsupported allegations during litigation.
[05/08]
Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)
More...
Corporation & Enterprise Law
[05/13]
Roemmich v. Eagle Eye Dev., LLC
In an action brought by shareholder-plaintiff alleging various violations of his rights as a minority shareholder, partial summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty to a minority shareholder was time barred by North Dakota's statute of limitations; 2) the continuing wrong doctrine did not toll the limitations period; 3) there was no error in findings of fact concerning freeze-out of a minority shareholder, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair deprivation of reasonable expectations; and 4) in applying North Dakota state law, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees and expenses to defendant.
[05/13]
Estate of Pew v. Cardarelli
In an appeal primarily addressing whether a claim fell within the exception to the Class Action Fairness Act's ("CAFA") grant of original and appellate jurisdiction for class actions which solely involve claims concerning certain rights and duties related to any security, the circuit court: 1) rules that the suit at hand does not fall within such exception to CAFA jurisdiction, and thus it has authority to accept an appeal from a remand order; 2) grants defendant's petition for leave to appeal; and 3) reverses the district court's remand order on the merits.
[05/12]
Kornman & Assocs. Inc. v. US
In a proceeding under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) in which plaintiffs were alleged to have attempted to create an artificial tax loss through the short sale of Treasury Notes and the transfer of partnership interests, summary judgment for the government and dismissal with prejudice of a petition for readjustment of partnership items is affirmed where the obligation to close a short sale is a liability for purposes of I.R.C. section 752.
[05/09]
Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures and Television
In a breach of contract action involving Disney's alleged failure to fully compensate for its exploitation of the cartoon characters depicted in plaintiff's novel "Who Censored Roger Rabbit?", judgment for plaintiff including the amount of damages awarded is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the trial court erroneously allowed the jury to interpret the term "purchaser" in a 1983 agreement when the meaning of that term was not dependent on the credibility of conflicting extrinsic evidence, and thus there was no factual issue for the jury to resolve; and 2) because plaintiff's royalty payments under the agreement did not include any entitlement to the gross receipt of Disney's subsidiaries, the trial court's award of that amount was erroneous.
[05/08]
In re: Straightline Invs., Inc.
A judgment under 11 U.S.C. section 549(a) avoiding the transfer to appellant of corporate bankruptcy debtor's accounts receivable which had a face value of approximately $200,600 is affirmed over appellant's claims that: 1) the transfer of accounts receivable was not an avoidable transfer because there was no depletion or diminution of debtor's estate; 2) the transfer was an outright sale of receivables in the ordinary course of business, and the defenses of recoupment and earmarking should apply to bar recovery by the trustee; and 3) even if it was avoidable, the wrong measure of recovery was awarded.
More...
Probate Trusts
[05/15]
Miller v. Campbell
In a fees dispute brought by a law firm against the executor of an estate after the probate court refused to award a category of fees associated with services rendered for the executor's personal matters, grant of executor's motions in limine to exclude all evidence, resulting in dismissal of the case, is reversed where: 1) the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply to bar the law firm's claim of fees against the executor personally; and 2) in light of the evidence, the trial court erroneously ruled that the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support the law firm's quantum meruit claim.
[05/13]
Montegani v. Johnson
In a dispute over a decedent's estate involving revocable and irrevocable trusts, an order denying plaintiff's Probate Code section 21320 application based on her lack of standing for section 21320 relief is affirmed where, as part of its duty to oversee the administration of the estate and insure orderly administration of justice, the trial court properly concluded that plaintiff was no longer a beneficiary of the trusts at issue, and thus lacked standing to seek declaratory relief under section 21320.
[05/06]
Estate of Herold
An order denying petitioner's safe harbor petition, which sought a declaration that his proposed "Petition for Information" would not amount to a will contest, is reversed and remanded where the trial court erred in finding that a no contest clause of the will was incorporated by reference into a trust.
[05/06]
Estate of Coll-Monge v. Inner Peace Movement
In an action for trademark infringement and related claims, summary judgment for defendants-non-profits is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in holding that a non-profit corporation cannot be a related company whose use of the trademark is controlled by the mark's registrant; and 2) there remain disputed issues of fact regarding both the doctrine's applicability in this case, and the capacity in which testator registered the marks with the USPTO.
[03/31]
Akira Akazawa v. Link New Tech. Int'l, Inc.
In a patent dispute, summary judgment for defendant based on lack of standing is vacated where issues of Japanese intestacy law must be resolved by the district court in order to determine whether plaintiff owned the patent at issue, and therefore possessed standing to bring the present suit.
More...
Property Law & Real Estate
[05/16]
General Auto Serv. Station v. City of Chicago
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against the City of Chicago over the removal of an advertising sign, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) as plaintiff's predecessor failed to obtain certain requisite permits in the 1960s and 70s, the sign was not a legal land use that gave rise to a protected property interest; 2) absent such a vested property right, a substantive due process challenge to zoning ordinance amendments failed; 3) plaintiff failed to show how the First Amendment was implicated by the content-neutral provisions of a grandfather provision; and 4) a procedural due process claim was waived.
[05/14]
Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Antt
An order enjoining California and Florida from applying their licensing and regulatory requirements on a Texas-based real estate broker is reversed and dismissed where: 1) personal jurisdiction over California did not arise from merely having sent cease and desist orders to the Texas Real Estate Commission; and 2) personal jurisdiction over Florida did not arise from the state's contact with the Texas Attorney General's Office in order to obtain information on the plaintiff for a suit in Florida.
[05/14]
Ericson v. Fed. Express Corp.
In a premises liability tort action arising from a third-party's assault and robbery incident in defendant's parking lot, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the third-party assault was not foreseeable under even the "regular reasonable forseeability" test; and 2) the negligent undertaking doctrine was inapplicable.
[05/14]
Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C.
In an action brought by plaintiff-architect under the Copyright Act alleging that defendants infringed his copyrighted architectural designs via the design, development, and construction of certain Trump buildings, summary judgment for defendants, as well as a denial of a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, are affirmed where a thorough review of the record indicated that the district court properly made its rulings under the specific facts of the case and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for leave to amend.
[05/13]
Garcia v. Brockway
An aggrieved person must bring a private civil action under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) for a failure to properly design and construct within two years of the completion of the construction phase, which concludes on the date that the last certificate of occupancy is issued. (Panel opinion adopted by the en banc court with amendments)
More...
Banking Law
[05/14]
Saunders v. Branch Banking and Trust Co. of Virginia
In an action alleging violation of defendant-lender's duties as a furnisher of information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), judgment against defendant including a denial of defendant's motions for judgment as a mater of law and for remittitur is affirmed where: 1) a decision by defendant to report a debt to credit reporting agencies without mention of a dispute was in violation of section 1681s-2 of the FCRA; 2) plaintiff was able to demonstrate that defendant knowingly and intentionally withheld information of a valid dispute from credit reporting agencies; 3) there were sufficient facts for a jury to find that plaintiff had an excuse for failing to make payments; and 4) an $80,000 punitive award was not grossly excessive in light of defendant's reprehensible conduct and the fact that a lower award would not have a punitive or deterrent effect.
[05/07]
Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.
[05/07]
Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc.
In a patent infringement action involving automated financial account processing systems, summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendants is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the construction of "remote interface" only encompasses publicly-accessible computer equipment and not consumer owned personal computers; 2) thus, defendant-Federated was entitled to summary judgment; 3) defendants-TD Ameritrade and HSBC were entitled to summary judgment only with respect to systems that are accessed solely via consumer-owned personal computers; but 4) further proceedings were required as to those defendants based on certain modified claim constructions.
[05/01]
Arnold, Matheny & Eagan, P.A. v. First Am. Holdings, Inc.
In a case involving the interpretation of Florida's garnishment statute and the obligations it imposes on third parties, including attorneys, who are served with writs of garnishment, the Supreme Court of Florida finds that Florida law imposes on both bank and non-bank garnishees the duty to retain funds held by the garnishee, even after a check on those funds has been drawn by the garnishee and delivered to the payee.
[04/29]
Patel v. Mukasey
Petition for review of a decision finding that petitioner, a citizen of India, was removable for having committed an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) is denied where plaintiff's conviction for misprision of a felony was an offense that: 1) necessarily entailed fraud or deceit; and 2) involved a loss to the victim exceeding $10,000.
More...
|
