Case Summaries
Admiralty
[01/12]
Bowers v. Whitman
In an appeal from an order of dismissal by the district court, order is affirmed where Oregon's modification of the remedies available under Measure 37 is not a constitutional taking because: 1) any potential property interest that plaintiffs had for compensation or a specific type of land use under Measure 37 had not vested; and 2) Measure 49 does not contravene substantive due process, as it does not implicate fundamental rights or fail rational basis scrutiny.
[12/15]
MLC Fishing, Inc. v. Velez
Dismissal for want of federal admiralty and maritime subject matter jurisdiction over fishing vessel owner's complaint seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability pursuant to the Exoneration and Limitation of Liability Act is affirmed where: 1) slip-and-fall accident that took place on a ramp leading from the marina to a floating dock that passengers were required to traverse in order to access the vessel did not occur on or over navigable waters; and 2) the Act did not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.
[12/14]
F.C. Wheat Maritime Corporation v. US
In an appeal from the district court's award of damages to appellants' in a dispute arising from an allision between a United States Army Corps of Engineers vessel and a private yacht owned by the appellants, judgment is affirmed over appellants' various challenges to the court's determination of damages due them.
[12/13]
India Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Kobil Petroleum Ltd.
In a Rule B maritime attachment and garnishment action to secure an arbitration judgment against the charterer of a damaged oil tanker, the district court's order vacating the attachment of a check released to the charterer from the Southern District’s Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) is affirmed, as the CRIS check, which represented the proceeds of electronic funds transfers that are beyond the reach of the district court, is not properly subject to attachment.
[12/12]
US v. Mitchell-Hunter
Denial of defendant's motion to dismiss drug crimes charges under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act after he was apprehended at sea on a go-fast vessel is affirmed because the use of State Department certifications memorializing the inability of Colombia and Venezuela to confirm or refute the go-fast's master's claim of national registry, without an opportunity to cross-examine their author, did not constitute a violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right under Crawford.
[10/20]
Chem One, Ltd. v. M/V Rickmers Genoa
In defendants' motion to dismiss or consolidate appeals from two interlocutory orders for summary judgment entered in their favor and arising from a collision of cargo ships at sea, motion to dismiss is denied because when a district court has determined all of the liabilities of a party in an admiralty action, and the district court's decision is unaffected by any remaining claims, interlocutory appellate jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(a)(3). Motion to consolidate is granted on equity and judicial economy grounds.
Read More
Bankruptcy Law
[02/02]
Gentry v. Siegel
In bankruptcy proceedings in which former employees of the debtor filed claims for unpaid overtime wages, the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of a Rule 9014 motion and its refusal to allow the claimants to pursue class actions is affirmed, where: 1) the bankruptcy court was within its discretion to rule that the bankruptcy process would provide a process superior to the class action process for resolving the claims of former employees; 2) notice of the bankruptcy process to the named claimants was not constitutionally deficient; and 3) with respect to unnamed claimants, the named claimants lacked standing to challenge the notice.
[01/30]
Matter of Thorpe Insulation Co.
In Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's orders denying a creditor's motion to compel arbitration and disallowing its claim is affirmed, where: 1) the resolution of the creditor's claim was a core matter in the bankruptcy; 2) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the creditor's motion to compel arbitration; 3) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give the creditor further opportunity for discovery; 4) the creditor's claim was properly disallowed because because the debtor's covenants in a settlement agreement were purported prepetition waivers of the protections of the Bankruptcy Code, which need not be permitted.
[01/27]
Matter of Meruelo Maddux Properties, Inc.
In Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings involving the question whether the debtor was subject to the single asset real estate provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the district court's holding that the single asset real estate provisions applied is affirmed, where: 1) the debtor, which existed solely to operate a 92-unit apartment complex, could be characterized as a single asset real estate debtor under the Bankruptcy Code; 2) the plain language of the Code gives no basis for a "whole business enterprise" exception to single asset real estate debtor status that would allow the court to consider parent corporation and sister subsidiaries; and 3) the district court did not err in its approach to granting relief from the automatic stay by leaving questions about whether the debtor timely took timely corrective action to the bankruptcy court in the first instance.
[01/25]
Flores v. Kmart Corp.
In a wrongful death action brought against a corporation that had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy pursuant to which a bankruptcy court had entered an order confirming a reorganization plan and discharging all known and unknown claims against the corporation, the trial court's demurrer dismissal of the complaint is reversed, where on the limited record of bankruptcy proceedings provided by the corporation, and consistent with Fourteenth Amendment due process principles, the corporation failed to demonstrate, at the demurrer stage, that the approval of the reorganization plan barred all of the plaintiffs' claims.
[01/24]
In the Matter of Thorpe Insulation Co.
In a bankruptcy case in which several insurance companies that did not reach settlements with the debtors were not allowed to challenge the Chapter 11 reorganization plan, the district court order issuing and affirming the plan is reversed with instructions on remand, where: 1) the appeal was not equitably moot; 2) the appellants met statutory, constitutional, and prudential standing requirements; 3) the appellants had standing in bankruptcy court to object to confirmation of the plan; and 4) anti-assignment provisions contained in contracts between the appellants and debtors were preempted by federal bankruptcy law.
[01/06]
Vegas Diamond Properties, LLC v. FDIC
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dissolving a Temporary Restraining Order on the ground that the anti-injunction provision of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act precluded it from enjoining the FDIC from conducting a trustee's sale of certain real properties, appeal is dismissed as moot where the subject properties were sold prior to appeal.
Read More
Entertainment
Read More
Environmental Law
[02/03]
Pacific Rivers Council v. US Forest Service
In a suit challenging Forest Service amendments to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan as inconsistent with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Forest Service is: 1) reversed in part, where the plaintiff had Article III standing, and the failure of the environmental impact statement (EIS) to provide any analysis of the environmental consequences on individual fish species was a failure to comply with the hard look requirement of NEPA; and 2) affirmed in part, insofar as the Forest Service did take a hard look at environmental consequences on amphibians in the EIS, in compliance with NEPA.
[01/26]
Chevron Corp. v. Naranjo
In a case in which a potential judgment-debtor sought a global anti-enforcement injunction against defendants from the Lago Agrio region of the Ecuadorian Amazon, prohibiting them from attempting to enforce an allegedly fraudulent judgment entered by an Ecuadorian court, the district court's grant of the injunction is reversed with orders to dismiss the claim, where the district court erred in construing New York’s Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act to grant the putative judgment-debtors a cause of action to challenge foreign judgments before enforcement of those judgments was sought.
[01/20]
Sierra Club v. EPA
On petition brought by several environmental groups for review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of the 2004 State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the San Joaquin Valley’s nonattainment area for the one-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, the petition is granted with remand where the agency’s action in approving the challenged SIP in 2010 based on data current only as of 2004 was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act.
[01/20]
Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado
In a case arising from the County of El Dorado's adoption of an oak woodland management plan and mitigation fee program without an environmental impact report (EIR), the district court's judgment in favor of the county is reversed, where: 1) the county could not rely on an earlier program EIR for its conclusion that the adoption of the plan and fee program would have no greater adverse environmental effect than that already anticipated in the program EIR, and its adoption of a negative declaration; and 2) the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required a tiered EIR to be conducted prior to the county's adoption of the plan and fee program.
[01/19]
Montana Sulphur and Chemical Company v. US Environmental Protection Agency
In consolidated cases challenging the propriety of various actions taken by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act with respect to Montana air quality, petitions for review of the agency actions are denied, where the EPA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously or abuse its discretion by making a State Implementation Plan (SIP) Call that preceded a formal revision of the SIP governing sulfur dioxide emissions, by disapproving portions of the revised SIP, or by promulgating the requirements set forth in the Federal Implementation Plan for sulfur dioxide emissions.
[01/19]
Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. US
In a suit for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for an alleged taking based on the Army Corps of Engineers' denial of a landowner's proposal to operate a "mitigation bank" on its property, the Court of Federal Claims' dismissal for failure to state a claim is affirmed, where the Claims Court did not err in holding that the landowner did not possess a legally cognizable Fifth Amendment property interest in a mitigation bank instrument.
Read More
Injury & Tort Law
[02/03]
Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Roberts
In a suit brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment that it was required to indemnify its insured for no more than 40 percent of a state court judgment because it had covered its insured for no more than 40 percent of the time in which the state court plaintiff was exposed to lead poisoning, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part, where it was correct in allocating the insurer's liability using the pro-rata time on-the-risk, and its decision to use the plaintiff's date of birth as the starting point for the period in which she was exposed to lead poisoning was sound; and 2) reversed in part, where the district court erred in holding the insurer liable for 24 months of coverage rather than 22, since under the insurance contract, coverage ended when the property was sold.
[02/02]
Lore v. City of Syracuse
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.
[02/01]
Maxton v. Western States Metals
In a suit alleging negligence and strict liability causes of action based on personal injuries as a result of working with metal products manufactured by the defendants and supplied to the plaintiff's employer, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants on demurrers is affirmed, where: 1) the metal products involved were not inherently dangerous, and no other circumstances justified imposing liability on the defendants for the plaintiff's injuries under the component parts doctrine; 2) the plaintiff did not meet his burden of showing there was a reasonable possibility that the deficiencies in the complaint could be cured by amendment.
[01/30]
Sennett v. US
In a suit by a photojournalist seeking money damages against the federal government for FBI agents' alleged violations of the Privacy Protection Act (PPA) stemming from a search of her apartment, the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the United States is affirmed, where: 1) the facts as alleged showed that the officers had probable cause to believe that the plaintiff was involved in criminal activity; and 2) the search of her home related to the investigation of that activity, so that the "suspect exception" to the PPA applied.
[01/27]
AE v. County of Tulare
In a suit arising from the sexual assault of a minor by his foster brother, alleging against the county that ran the foster home a claim under 42 USC section 1983 for deliberate indifference and claims for negligence pursuant to California statutes, the district court's dismissal of all claims against the county is reversed, where: 1) the district court abused its discretion when it denied leave to amend the complaint to cure defects in the section 1983 claim; 2) the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the derivative liability claims against the county with prejudice and without leave to amend when it granted leave to amend as to the allegations regarding defendant county social workers.
[01/27]
C9 Ventures v. SVC-West, L.P.
In a personal injury suit in which a lessor of helium-filled tanks used to inflate festive balloons cross-complained against the lessee to enforce an indemnification provision on the back of an unsigned invoice, the trial court's judgment in favor of the lessor and award of attorney fees to it is reversed, where: 1) the lessee did not manifest assent to the terms on the back of the unsigned invoice by course of dealing or course of performance, or under basic contract law; 2) the lessee did not sign the invoice or otherwise expressly agree to its terms; 3) an unsigned invoice itself is not a contract, and repeated delivery of a particular form does not make the form part of the parties' agreement; 4) payment of the invoice merely constituted the lessee's performance of the obligation under the oral contract to pay for the rental of the helium-filled tanks; and 5) assuming the transaction was a sale of goods covered by division 2 of the California Commercial Code, the indemnification provision was not an additional term of the contract under section 2207 of the Commercial Code.
Read More
Insurance Law
[02/03]
Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Roberts
In a suit brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment that it was required to indemnify its insured for no more than 40 percent of a state court judgment because it had covered its insured for no more than 40 percent of the time in which the state court plaintiff was exposed to lead poisoning, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part, where it was correct in allocating the insurer's liability using the pro-rata time on-the-risk, and its decision to use the plaintiff's date of birth as the starting point for the period in which she was exposed to lead poisoning was sound; and 2) reversed in part, where the district court erred in holding the insurer liable for 24 months of coverage rather than 22, since under the insurance contract, coverage ended when the property was sold.
[02/03]
Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.
The district court's grant of a petition to vacate an arbitral award is reversed, and on remand the district court is instructed to grant a cross-petition to confirm the award, where there was insufficient evidence before the district court on which to base a finding of "evident partiality" within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act despite the failure of two arbitrators to disclose their concurrent service as arbitrators in another, arguably similar, arbitration.
[01/30]
M & F Fishing, Inc. v. Sea-Pac Insurance Managers, Inc.
In an action by owners and operators of commercial fishing companies alleging violations of the Unfair Competition Law predicated on violations of the Insurance Code, the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is reversed and the matter is remanded, where: 1) the plaintiffs were not entitled to restitution for insurance lawfully placed from admitted carriers; 2) the plaintiffs were not entitled to restitution of premiums paid for nonadmitted coverage; 3) the plaintiffs were barred from recovering restitution of any broker fees based on a violation of Insurance Code section 1764.1 occurring more than four years before they filed suit; 4) the trial court should have granted one defendant's motion for nonsuit for lack of an agency relationship; 5) the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it denied the plaintiffs' motions to amend to add additional parties; and 6) the plaintiffs' entitlement to prejudgment interest was subject to the discretion of the trial court.
[01/27]
Hutcherson v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Arizona's Medicaid agency had no right at all to recover from an annuity purchased by a husband so that his institutionalized wife could obtain Medicaid coverage or, alternatively, had no right to recover for any costs incurred for the wife's care after the husband's death, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the federal Medicaid Act allows states to reach a deceased community spouse's annuity for costs incurred on behalf of an institutionalized spouse; and 2) nothing in the language of the Act was inconsistent with permitting the state agency to recover from the annuity expenses incurred after the husband's death.
[01/26]
Lopez & Medina Corp. v. Marsh USA, Inc.
On appeal of a rejected cross-motion for summary judgment that argued that an insurance policy's coverage expressly applied to an airline's underlying claims for damages arising from the insured's failure to provide air transportation, as contractually required, to the airline's passengers, the district court's order denying the motion is affirmed, as the phrase "legally obligated to pay as damages" in a commercial general liability policy, which usually covers only tort claims, does not also provide coverage for claims in an underlying action arising out of and related to a contract between the parties.
[01/26]
Fortin v. Titcomb
In a case in which a federal jury awarded the appellant $125,000 in damages against a police officer after finding that the officer negligently used force in arresting the appellant, which award the district court reduced to $10,000, the maximum set by the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA) for the personal liability of government employees, the following questions are certified to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court: 1) where an insurance policy is available to cover a judgment against a government employee sued in his or her personal capacity, is the limit on the award of damages $10,000 as set by the MTCA at section 8104-D or is the limit set by reference to sections 8105(1) and 8116?; and 2) which interpretive principles should be applied to construe an insurance policy, procured by a governmental body to cover itself or its employees for MTCA damages liability, that contains an ambiguity affecting the scope of coverage?
Read More
Oil & Gas
Read More
Probate Trusts
Read More
Sports Law
[11/02]
CBS Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission
In a petition for review of an order of defendant-FCC penalizing petitioner for broadcasting a fleeting nude image during the National Football League's Super Bowl halftime performance, petition is granted because defendant failed to acknowledge that its order reflected a policy change and improperly imposed a penalty on petitioner for violating a previously unannounced policy.
[04/28]
Cedar Fair v. City of Santa Clara
In a petition for a writ of mandate pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Act) and pertaining to the allocation, in a term sheet, of a proposed site for a 49er stadium, judgment of the trial court denying petition is affirmed because term sheet did not constitute a project or a project approval within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, preparation of an environmental impact report was not required.
[04/01]
Lopera v. Town of Coventry
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 dispute arising from a police search of team members after a heated match and with the consent of team coach, summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where officers were entitled to qualified immunity and plaintiffs did not introduce sufficient evidence supporting a finding that the police engaged in racial discrimination.
[03/08]
Equity in Athletics, Inc. v. Department of Education
In a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. section 1681-88, summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where plaintiff failed to offer any support for its numerous constitutional, statutory, and procedural claims.
[02/16]
Rosencrans v. Dover Images, Inc.
In a tort action brought by a motorcyclist against operators of a motorcross track, alleging negligence, negligent training and supervision, and loss of consortium, summary judgment to defendant on all causes of action is reversed as to the gross negligence claim, but affirmed in all other respects.
[01/10]
Eriksson v. Nunnink
In plaintiff-parents' suit for wrongful death and infliction of emotion distress against defendant, their deceased daughter's horse riding coach, claiming that defendant increased the risk of harm reasonably assumed by their daughter when defendant allowed their daughter to ride a horse that was unfit to ride because of prior falls and lack of practice and concealed this condition from the plaintiffs, trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is reversed where: 1) as to primary assumption of risk, defendant failed to set forth facts in her separate statement of undisputed facts negating the plaintiffs' allegation that defendant increased the risk of injury to their daughter by allowing her to ride a horse that was unfit to ride because of prior falls and lack of practice; 2) defendant failed to meet her burden of production as it relates to the element of breach of duty; 3) with respect to express contractual assumption of risk, defendant failed to meet her burden of proof of production that she was not grossly negligent; 4) even if defendant met her initial burden, triable issues of fact exist as to duty, breach of duty, and gross negligence; and 5) with respect to causation, if defendant's undisputed statement of facts addressed the issue, the plaintiffs have demonstrated a triable issue of fact.
Read More
Tax Law
[01/24]
TIFD III-E, Inc. v. US
In a suit by a taxpayer partner challenging IRS notices of adjustment reallocating a large percentage of the partnership's income for the years 1993 to 1998 to the taxpayer away from two Dutch banks that had purchased an interest in the partnership, and imposing a penalty for underpayment, the district court's judgment in favor of the taxpayer is reversed, where: 1) the banks' interest was not a capital interest for purposes of qualifying them as partners within the meaning of IRC section 704(e)(1); and 2) the taxpayer failed to point to substantial authority supporting its position, so that the government was entitled to impose a penalty on the taxpayer for substantial understatement of income.
[01/23]
Goldman v. California Franchise Tax Board
In a suit seeking a refund of interest a husband and wife paid in 2004 on a state income tax deficiency for the 2000 tax year, the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant of summary judgment for the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) is affirmed, where under Revenue and Taxation Code section 19116(e) the interest on the amount paid with their return was not suspended because they were obligated to report federal tax adjustments to the FTB under Revenue and Taxation Code section 18622(a).
[01/20]
In re US
In a case in which a taxpayer sought and was granted discovery of protected tax return information of non-parties, the government's petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Court of Federal Claims to vacate its order compelling disclosure is granted, where: 1) the Claims Court was generally without statutory authority to compel disclosure of confidential taxpayer information; and 2) an exception to the statutory prohibition for situations in which the treatment of an item reflected on the tax return is directly related to the resolution of an issue in the proceeding was inapplicable.
[01/19]
US v. Brown
On consolidated appeals of a husband and wife convicted of various offenses stemming from their refusal to surrender after conviction on tax-evasion charges, their convictions are affirmed, where: 1) there was no reasonable cause to believe that the husband was mentally incompetent, and therefore the district court was not required to sua sponte order a formal competency hearing and evaluation; 2) evidence of the husband's beliefs that his previous tax trial was a sham and that tax laws are unconstitutional was properly disallowed, and thus his constitutional right to present a defense was not impaired; 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence alleged to be hearsay; 4) there was no merit in any of the wife's assertions of evidentiary error, and thus her trial was not tainted by cumulative error; 5) there was no reversible error in the jury instructions or the verdict form in articulating the offense at 18 USC section 924(c); 6) the trial judge's decision to question jurors in chambers did not violate the wife's constitutional right to be present at trial or her right to a public trial.
[01/19]
Western States Petroleum Ass'n v. State Board of Equalization
In an action for declaratory relief seeking to invalidate a regulation of the State Board of Equalization (SBE) that adopted new valuation formulas for petroleum refineries, the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on cross-motions for summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the trial court did not err in declaring the regulation to be inconsistent with Rev. and Tax. Code section 51(d); and 2) the trial court did not err in ruling that SBE's economic impact statement did not comply with requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.
[01/06]
US v. Allen
Conviction and sentencing of husband-wife defendants for tax evasion are upheld where the district court correctly charged the jury that defendants were entitled to an acquittal if it found that defendants held their belief that they were not liable for taxes in good faith.
Read More
|
