Case Summaries
Admiralty
[08/31]
Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp.
In an action seeking to attach defendant's property in New York as pre-judgment security for a pending arbitration in Hong Kong, dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court did not err in declining to fashion an equitable remedy in circumstances where it was clear that the original attachment order could not be sustained in light of Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009).
[08/24]
Combo Maritime, Inc. v. U.S. United Bulk Terminal, LLC
In an action for contribution and indemnity, and property damage, based on a barge breakaway, summary judgment for third-party defendant is reversed where there were insufficient findings in the record to determine whether the passing vessel presumption should have been applied against third-party defendant.
[08/20]
Uralde v. US
In an action against the U.S. claiming that plaintiff's wife died as a result of the Coast Guard's failure to provide her access to timely medical treatment after she was injured during the Coast Guard’s interdiction of their vessel, the dismissal of the action is reversed where, because the Suits in Admiralty Act did not include a reciprocity requirement, plaintiff had no obligation to demonstrate that Cuba would allow Americans to sue its government on similar claims.
[08/12]
Scanscot Shipping Servs GmbH v. Metales Tracomex LTDA
In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's order vacating the attachment of certain electronic fund transfers (EFTs) held by garnishee Wachovia Bank in New York City, which the district court had previously attached pursuant to Rule B of the Supplemental Admiralty Rules for Certain Admiralty Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the order is affirmed where: 1) EFTs for which the defendant is both the originator and the beneficiary are not the property of the defendant and, therefore, may not be attached pursuant to Rule B; 2) when an intermediary bank responds to an order of attachment, later determined to be wrongful, by sequestering the wrongly attached funds in a non-EFT suspense account, a creditor may not then reattach those funds in the new account; and 3) Jaldhi's retroactivity was not subject to a case-by-case rebuttable presumption.
[08/11]
In re: Fitzgerald Marine & Repair
In a defendant's appeal in a personal injury action from summary judgment to a third-party defendant on defendant's cross-claim for contractual indemnity, a denial of summary judgment to defendant on third-party defendant's common law indemnity and contribution claims, and an award of attorney's fees and costs to the third-party defendant, the order is affirmed where: 1) the contract at issue was not ambiguous; 2) the clause at issue required defendant to indemnify third-party defendant for all injuries to defendant's employees that arose in connection with a 2001 Service Agreement; and 3) there was no error of law in the district court's award of the entire nonsegregated category to third-party defendant.
[07/29]
Danos Marine Inc. v. Certain Primary Protection & Indemn. Underwriters
In an action to recover costs of wreck removal from defendant-underwriters of a liftboat resulting from the capsizing and sinking of that vessel in the Gulf of Mexico during Hurricane Katrina, judgment for defendant is reversed where the costs of removing the wreck were covered under the policy at issue but the value of the salvage did not exceed those costs.
Read More
Bankruptcy Law
[09/02]
US v. Ritchie Special Cred. Invs., Ltd.
In intervenor's application to intervene in an adversary proceeding initiated by the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1345 against the alleged author of a Ponzi scheme, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the
litigation progressed substantially between the initiation of these proceedings and intervenor's second motion to intervene; and 2) intervenor had knowledge of all the facts surrounding the district court's injunction, and failed to take issue with it when first presented with an opportunity to do so.
[09/02]
Ritchie Special Cred. Invs., Ltd. v. US Trustee
In a creditor's objection to the appointment of a bankruptcy trustee, arguing that the trustee did not qualify as a “disinterested person” as required by 11
U.S.C. section 1104(d), the denial of the objection is affirmed where: 1) the
bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the trustee's role and interests as a receiver did not predispose him towards forfeiture or amount to a disqualifying material adverse interest; and 2) there was no abuse of discretion in the bankruptcy court’s determination that creditor failed to show that it would be prejudiced by the trustee's appointment as trustee in the jointly administered estates.
[08/27]
Paloian v. Lasalle Bank, N.A.
In a debtor-hospital's trustee's action to recover, as fraudulent conveyances, some loan payments made during the last years before hospital entered bankruptcy, judgment of the district court is vacated and remanded where: 1) LaSalle Bank is an "initial transferee" as an entity that receives funds for use in paying down a loan, or passing money to investors in a pool, is an "initial transferee" even though the recipient is obliged by contract to apply the funds according to a formula; 2) because the hospital was solvent in August 1997, the ensuing months' debt service cannot be recaptured as a fraudulent conveyance; and 3) on remand, the bankruptcy court is instructed to determine whether the transfer of the accounts receivable to MMA Funding was a true sale, such that MMA Funding served as the bankruptcy-proofing intermediary that the lenders desired.
[08/26]
In re: Zarnel
In an appeal from a district court's order dismissing a bankruptcy trustee's appeal for lack of standing and in the alternative affirming the bankruptcy court's decision to strike the bankruptcy petitions filed by respondents rather than to dismiss their cases, the order is vacated where: 1) the U.S. Trustee's responsibility to represent and protect the public interest afforded it a substantial interest in, and therefore standing, to proceed with this appeal; 2) the court needed only assure itself that it was deciding a live case or controversy, and Article III jurisdiction existed; and 3) the restrictions of 11 U.S.C. sections 301 and 109(h) were not jurisdictional, but rather elements that must be established to sustain a voluntary bankruptcy proceeding.
[08/23]
In re: Raynor
In a Chapter 7 trustee's action to avoid certain transfers that debtor made to his wife, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) order affirming a stipulated judgment entered by the bankruptcy court, holding that the BAP must defer to the district court's original determination that the cause of action was not time-barred and, pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, declining to revisit the issue, is affirmed where the plain language of 11 U.S.C. section 546 set the statute of limitations period as a full two years, which did not render the claim untimely.
[08/18]
US v. Holstein
Conviction of defendant for bankruptcy fraud and making false statements in bankruptcy petitions, based on providing bankruptcy services at his law firm while on suspension for professional conduct, is affirmed as the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of both 18 U.S.C. section 157(1) and 18 U.S.C. section 1519.
Read More
Entertainment
Read More
Environmental Law
[09/01]
Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink
In a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) challenge to eighteen amendments to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) grazing regulations, partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where: 1) the BLM failed to address concerns raised by its own experts, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA, and state agencies; and 2) there was resounding evidence from agency experts that the eighteen amendments to the BLM's grazing regulations may affect listed species and their habitat. However, the order is vacated in part where the district court failed to consider plaintiffs' Federal Land Policy and Management Act claim under the framework and with the deference set forth in Chevron.
[08/31]
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy v. Universal Paragon Corp.
In defendant's suit against a law firm, claiming that an arbitrator's award of $7,554,149.13 in attorney fees and expenses for the law firm, related to its representation of defendant in an underlying complex environmental litigation, is unconscionable and violates public policy, superior court's affirmance of the award is affirmed as, assuming that defendant's claim of unconscionability is subject to judicial review as a predicate for determining whether the arbitration award violates public policy, the claim is rejected on the merits as neither the fee agreement nor the award actually issued by the arbitrator is unconscionable under rule 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
[08/25]
Northern Cal. River Watch v. Wilcox
In an action claiming that defendants violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by digging up and removing endangered plant species, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where "areas under Federal jurisdiction" in section 9 of the ESA did not include the privately-owned land at issue here.
[08/20]
Modesto Irrigation Dist. v. Gutierrez
In an action by irrigation districts challenging the decision of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to list the steelhead, a type of Pacific salmon, as
a threatened species in California's Central Valley, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) Section 1532(16) of the Endangered Species Act did not require that interbreeding organisms be placed in the same distinct population segment; and 2) the government provided an adequate rationale for the change in policy.
[08/18]
US v. Agosto-Vega
Conviction of a company in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and its owner and principal officer for violating criminal provisions of the Clean Water Act is vacated where: 1) district court committed a structural error by excluding the public from the courtroom during the selection of the jury; and 2) the government proved the charges against defendants by sufficient evidence to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[08/17]
Northwest Env. Def. Ctr. v. Brown
In an action claiming that defendants violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its implementing regulations by not obtaining permits from the Environmental Protection Agency for stormwater -- largely rainwater -- runoff that flows from logging roads into systems of ditches, culverts, and channels and is then discharged into forest streams and rivers, dismissal of the action is reversed where the discharges were not exempted from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting process by the Silvicultural Rule, 40 C.F.R. section 122.27, promulgated under the CWA to regulate discharges associated with silvicultural activity.
Read More
Injury & Tort Law
[09/01]
Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In an action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and two Missouri police officers following an incident involving counterfeit money orders at a Raymore Wal-Mart store, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) given these undisputed facts, probable cause supported plaintiff's warrantless arrest; 2) attorney's fees were proper because plaintiff's continued prosecution of her false arrest claim against the officers in the face of the evidence upon discovery was unquestionably groundless and unreasonable; and 3) the record reflected no evidence of racial animus or hostility toward plaintiff.
[09/01]
Sprinkles v. Associated Indem. Corp.
In plaintiffs' bad faith action against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, arising from an underlying suit against defendant and his employer for causing the death of plaintiffs' father in an automobile accident, trial court's judgment sustaining the insurer's demurrer is affirmed as, under the complaint and matters judicially noticed, the defendant-employee was an insured, rendering the automobile exclusion in the GCL policy applicable, and Fireman's Fund had no duty to defend the employer.
[08/31]
Mader v. US
In an action against the U.S. under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging the Department of Veterans Affairs acted negligently in providing medical treatment to plaintiff's husband, dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed where a plaintiff meets the Act's jurisdictional prerequisites when she provides the relevant agency with: 1) sufficient information for the agency to investigate the claims; and 2) the amount of damages sought.
[08/30]
Luo v. Mikel
In an action alleging serious injury sustained during an automobile accident within the meaning of New York Insurance Law section 5102(d), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where the district court's exercise of jurisdiction was proper. However, the order is vacated in part where, taken together with plaintiff's subjective evidence as to the impact of the injury on her functioning, plaintiff's medical evidence was sufficient to raise a question of fact issue as to serious injury pursuant to N.Y. Ins. Law section 5104(a).
[08/30]
Meyers v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger
In plaintiff's occupational injury lawsuit against his employer, Amtrack, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to establish the required causation element of his FELA action is affirmed as, because plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the reports and testimony of his proffered causation experts were properly barred by the district court, and as such, plaintiff failed to raise genuine issues of material fact with respect to the causation element of his FELA claim.
[08/30]
Next Step Med. Co., Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson Int'l
Read More
Insurance Law
[09/02]
Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nat'l. Union Ins. Co.
In an action by one insurer against another seeking $10 million in subrogation proceeds, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff waived certain rights by refusing repeated invitations to participate in subrogation discussions. However, the judgment is reversed in part where, as the excess insurer, plaintiff was entitled to a priority interest in the subrogation proceeds representing insured losses.
[09/01]
Sprinkles v. Associated Indem. Corp.
In plaintiffs' bad faith action against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, arising from an underlying suit against defendant and his employer for causing the death of plaintiffs' father in an automobile accident, trial court's judgment sustaining the insurer's demurrer is affirmed as, under the complaint and matters judicially noticed, the defendant-employee was an insured, rendering the automobile exclusion in the GCL policy applicable, and Fireman's Fund had no duty to defend the employer.
[08/31]
Hayes Lemmerz Int'l, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.
In an employer's suit against its insurer for refusing to tender defense in an underlying suit under its workers' compensation and employer liability policy, judgment of the district court in favor of the insurer is affirmed as, because defendant was, by virtue of Indiana law, a joint employer, insurer was contractually obligated to reimburse the reasonable expense of defendant's getting itself dismissed from the tort suit. However, because the defendant is not claiming that insurer refused to pay that amount, but rather, it is complaining that the insurer breached its duty to defend by failing to advise defendant that it's law firm was not defending the suit properly, the insurer had no duty to provide its insured's lawyers with legal advice.
[08/30]
Uhm v. Humana, Inc.
In an action against an insurer for nonpayment of Medicare benefits, the dismissal of the action is affirmed where 1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs' breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims because they were not properly exhausted under the Medicare Prescription Drug
Improvement and Modernization Act; and 2) plaintiffs' fraud and consumer protection act claims, while not subject to the Act’s exhaustion provisions, were expressly preempted.
[08/30]
Vill. Northridge Homeowners Ass'n v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
In homeowners association's suit against an insurance company, claiming that the insurer fraudulently induced it to settle a Northridge earthquake-related claim for less than it was worth under the policy, judgment of the court of appeals is reversed as a release of a disputed claim does not permit a party to elect the remedy of a suit for damages when the release itself bars that option. Instead, the insured party to the release must follow the rules governing rescission of the release before suing the insurer for damages.
[08/30]
First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co.
In an action by the administrator of the estate of a murder victim, seeking the policy proceeds of a policy in the victim's name obtained by the perpetrator, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where, because the victim had an interest in the policy, payment to her estate was authorized due to the perpetrator's disqualification. However, the judgment is reversed in part where, absent its presence in the case, plaintiff was still required to establish the perpetrator's disqualification in order to recover other insurance policy proceeds.
Read More
Oil & Gas
Read More
Probate Trusts
Read More
Sports Law
[08/16]
Adams v. Del. Harness Racing Comm'n
In an appeal from an order of the Delaware Harness Racing Commission claiming that it improperly sanctioned a horse trainer after his horses tested positive for a prohibited drug, the order is affirmed where: 1) the Commission did not deprive petitioner of a fair and impartial hearing; and 2) the Commission was lenient with petitioner because it treated all three offenses as first offenses and imposed the minimum penalties.
[07/23]
Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp.
In plaintiff's antitrust suit against a tire supplier competitor and a motorsports sanctioning body, arising from the adoption of the so-called "single tire rule" by various sanctioning bodies in the sport of dirt oval track racing as well as the exclusive supply contracts between the sanctioning bodies and the defendant tire supplier, district court's grant of defendants' motions for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) a general rule is adopted that the Sherman Act does not forbid sanctioning bodies and other sport-related organizations from freely adopting exclusive equipment requirements, so long as such organizations otherwise possess, in good faith, sufficient pro-competitive or business justifications for their actions; 2) the district court was correct to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants because of plaintiffs' failure to meet the antitrust injury requirement; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion on rejecting a last minute attempt to amend a pleading for the fourth time.
[07/22]
US v. Thomas
Cyclist Tammy Thomas's convictions for three counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice are affirmed where: 1) the jury could reasonably have concluded from all this testimony that defendant's grand jury testimony that she never received any "other products" was not literally true; 2) a reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant understood the question in count three of the indictment as the government understood it and that she answered falsely based on this understanding; and 3) there was sufficient evidence for the jury reasonably to conclude that defendant did not offer literally true answers in the exchange charged in count four of the indictment.
[07/16]
George v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
In plaintiffs' proposed nationwide class action against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and Ticketmaster, alleging that defendants operated illegal lotteries to sell and distribute tickets for certain Division I championship tournaments, district court's dismissal of all claims is reversed and remanded where: 1) plaintiffs have alleged all elements of a lottery as they paid a per-ticket or per-entry fee (consideration) to enter a random drawing (chance) in hopes of obtaining scarce, valuable tickets (a prize); 2) because plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that the NCAA conducted a lottery, the bona fide business transaction exception to the statutory definition of gambling has no effect; 3) the district court erred in holding that the doctrine of in pari delicto bars plaintiffs from seeking relief from court; and 4) district court's order of dismissal must be reversed as to all counts remaining in plaintiffs' second amended complaint.
[06/25]
Deutscher Tennis Bund v. ATP Tour, Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against the ATP Tour, an organizer of worldwide men's professional tennis circuit, claiming that the ATP Tour's reorganization to revitalize its popularity violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and constituted a breach of the directors' fiduciary duties, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) the jury verdict on the Sherman Act section 1 claim is affirmed as the plaintiffs failed to prove the relevant market; and 2) district court's judgment as a matter of law dismissing the breach of duty of loyalty claim against a director is affirmed as neither he individually, nor the ATP Board of Directors as a whole, were materially self-interested when they voted in favor of the reorganization plan.
[06/11]
US v. Bonds
In the government's appeal from various adverse evidentiary rulings in the Barry Bonds perjury prosecution, the orders are affirmed where: 1) the district court finding properly focused on the record of untrustworthiness of trainer Greg Anderson in excluding his testimony; 2) the court correctly ruled that the government failed to show that certain statements by Anderson were authorized by Bonds, in excluding those statements; 3) there was sufficient basis in the record to support the district court's conclusion that Anderson acted as an independent contractor rather than an employee; and 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit certain log sheets as evidence that the samples listed were Bonds'.
Read More
Tax Law
[09/02]
Bale Chevrolet Co. v. US
In a petition for review of intentional disregard penalties issued against petitioner for failing to file required Forms 8300 information returns with the IRS, the petition is denied where the government's positions were substantially justified.
[09/01]
Hongsermeier v. Comm'r of Internal Rev.
The tax court's determination of petitioners' federal income tax deficiencies and liability for underpayment of interest is affirmed where: 1) the tax court's determination of the percentage deduction in the taxpayers' deficiencies, plus other benefits, accorded with the court's mandate in Dixon and was not an abuse of discretion; 2) the IRS Commissioner's position did not constitute fraud on the court or bad faith; and 3) the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the materials available to determine a settlement fraction.
[08/30]
US v. Blanchard
Conviction of defendant for failure to account for and pay over-withholding and FICA taxes and making and causing the making of a false claim for a tax refund is affirmed where: 1) offenses under section 7202 are covered by section 6531(4)'s six-year limitations period; 2) district court did not err in admitting evidence regarding discretionary expenditures; 3) while a defendant's inability to pay taxes when due bears on the willfulness of his act, it is not an element of the offense under 26 U.S.C. section 7202; 4) district court did not err in refusing to give defendant's proposed jury instructions; 5) sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions under section 287; and 6) district court's restitution order is vacated and remanded.
[08/30]
US v. Kloehn
Defendant's conviction and sentence for four counts of causing tax evasion are reversed where the district court abused its discretion and prejudiced defendant's ability to present his defense when it refused to continue the trial for two days to allow him to see his dying son.
[08/27]
US v. Pfaff
In a tax evasion prosecution, the fine imposed on one defendant is vacated where the district court plainly erred in imposing a fine, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3571(d), based on the court's finding that defendant caused a certain pecuniary loss, when that fine exceeded the maximum fine that would have been permitted absent the finding.
[08/27]
Russell v. Comm'r of Internal Rev.
In taxpayers' appeal from the tax court’s decision that several loans did not constitute "indebtedness of the S corporation to the shareholder" such that taxpayers could claim losses incurred by the Missouri River Royalty Corporation (MMRC), the order is affirmed where the court's review of the record revealed no error in the tax court's rulings.
Read More
|
