U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 18,
2007
Alstom Caribe, Inc
v. Geo P. Reintjes Co., Inc., No. 06-2386
In a
dispute over construction work performed at a power plant, an order
of the district court commanding the deposit of funds into the
court's registry is vacated and remanded with instructions to
reconsider motions for intervention and transfer where: 1) the
transfer of the funds to a different court in a different district
was error; 2) the error was not harmless; and 3) the order was
internally inconsistent. Read
more...
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 17,
2007
Healey
v. Rovner, No. 06-0525
In case involving class
action suit filed on behalf of home-bound Medicare beneficiaries who
rely on Medicare coverage for various in-home services provided by
home health agencies, award of attorney fees under EAJA is affirmed
as to the decision to award fees and to reduce the amount sought,
however, the award is reversed to the extent the fees were awarded
above the statutory cap. Read
more...
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 18,
2007
Rendell
v. Rumsfeld, No. 05-4740
In Pennsylvania officials'
challenge to the legality of recommendations made by Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld to deactivate the 111th Fighter Wing of the
Pennsylvania National Guard, a ruling finding the recommendations
were invalid is vacated where the case was moot and vacatur was the
most equitable remedy. Read
more...
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 20,
2007
State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rosenthal, No.
06-2158
In an insurer's declaratory judgment action
against an insured alleging that his underinsured motorist claim was
time barred by Pennsylvania's four-year statute of limitations on
contract claims, a ruling for the insured is affirmed on alternate
grounds, based on a prediction that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
would start running the statute of limitations on the date on which
an insured settles with or obtains an award from the adverse driver
for less than the value of his damages. Read
more...
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 20,
2007
Campbell
v. Galloway, No. 06-1038
In case involving
discrimination and retaliation claims by former police officer,
summary adjudication for defendants on some of plaintiff's claims,
but allowing Title VII claims against town and First Amendment and
Equal Protection claims against individuals, is reversed as to the
First Amendment claims, as the defendants are entitled to qualified
immunity. Interlocutory appeal of Equal Protection claims is
dismissed. Read
more...
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 17,
2007
Triple
Tee Golf, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., No. 05-10934,
05-11442
In a suit brought against Nike and others
involving claims of misappropriation of trade secrets by certain
golf clubs, summary judgment for Nike and related rulings are
reversed in part where the district court erroneously disregarded
the relevance of certain undisclosed patent applications by Nike to
its evidentiary orders that laid the foundation for the grant of
summary judgment. Read
more...
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 19,
2007
City
of Cookeville v. Upper Cumberland Elec. Membership Corp., No.
05-5886; 06-5363
In a dispute over an element of
compensation that Tennessee law requires when a city annexes
territory and exercises its right to purchase electric utility
property within the annexed territory, an order requiring city to
pay reintegration costs of almost $6 million is affirmed as it was
legally proper and not clearly erroneous. However, an order
enjoining the city from providing electric service in the annexed
area, pending resolution of the compensation dispute, is reversed as
it improperly expanded the scope of the previous compensation order.
Read
more...
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 19,
2007
Revis
v. Meldrum, No. 06-5197, 06-5399
In a 42 U.S.C.
section 1983 action brought against persons and entities involved in
executing certain writs of execution against plaintiff, it was
alleged that a seizure of his residence and a search of his person
pursuant to the writs violated his constitutional rights. Summary
judgment and other rulings for defendants are affirmed in part,
vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) although the underlying
litigation and judgment did not provide constitutionally adequate
process for plaintiff's eviction, defendant-deputy was nevertheless
entitled to qualified immunity; 2) deputy was also entitled to
qualified immunity on a Fourth Amendment claim; 3) a verbal exchange
did not amount to a search for Fourth Amendment purposes; 4) there
was no "deliberate indifference" as to a failure to properly train
the deputy; 5) claims against private-party defendants failed as
their actions could not be attributed to the state; and 6) an
attorney's fees award required reconsideration in ligh! t ! of the
circuit court's findings. Read
more...
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 20,
2007
Jaskolski
v. Gonzales, No. 06-3508
In a suit where defendants
accused of false prosecution for insurance fraud sought
classification as federal employees for purposes of federal
jurisdiction, defendants' appeal of the district court's denial of
federal employee status is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where
a statute, as interpreted in Osborn v. Haley, 127 S. Ct. 881 (2007),
that prohibits review of an order remanding a case back to the state
court from which it was removed rendered the appeal unreviewable. Read
more...
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 17,
2007
Libel
v. Adventure Lands of Am., Inc., No. 06-1711
In an
action brought against former employer-amusement park operator under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), ERISA, and state law,
summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district
court did not err in deeming certain facts admitted based on
plaintiff's failure to comply with a local rule in responding to
statements of undisputed facts; and 2) there was no error in the
summary judgment rulings on the claims. Read
more...
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 16,
2007
Sea
Hawk Foods, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., No. 05-35468
In an
action brought against Exxon by the operator of a seafood processing
business in Alaska for business losses resulting from the Exxon
Valdez oil spill, a district court's determination of the applicable
prejudgment interest rates following settlement of the claims is
reversed where the district court erred by not applying Alaska law
to plaintiff's Alaska state law claim for prejudgment interest. Read
more...
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 16,
2007
Detabali
v. St. Luke's Hosp., No. 05-15591
Dismissal of
plaintiff's California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) claims
against defendant-hospital and imposition of sanctions against
plaintiff's attorney are reversed where: 1) the district court erred
in finding that the FEHA employment discrimination and retaliation
claims were preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA),
and consequently it lacked jurisdiction over the case; and 2) the
district abused its discretion in imposing sanctions on attorney as
his repleading of the FEHA claims, in contravention of the district
court's instructions, preserved them for appeal and his decision
clearly had merit. Read
more...
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 16,
2007
Sanford
v. MemberWorks, Inc., No. 05-55175
In an action
alleging violations of 39 U.S.C. section 3009 and related state law
claims arising from plaintiff's purchase of a set of fitness tapes
by phone, an order confirming an arbitration award is affirmed in
part, and vacated in part where: 1) plaintiff's appeal was timely;
2) the order compelling arbitration was erroneous as the district
court failed to rule upon a contract formation issue before
compelling arbitration; but 3) dismissal of claims against one
defendant was proper as it never mailed unordered merchandise to
plaintiff for purposes of section 3009, and there was no abuse of
discretion in dismissing state law claims as to that defendant. Read
more...
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 17,
2007
Pac.
Fisheries Inc. v. US, No. 04-35897, 04-35899
In a
dispute in which taxpayers sought attorneys' fees from the
government for their pursuit of two federal court petitions to quash
third-party summonses by the IRS, a ruling for the government is
affirmed where, although the district court erred in placing the
burden to prove lack of substantial justification on taxpayers, as a
matter of law, the government met its burden of proving its position
was substantially justified. The government's prelitigation conduct
could not be factored into a determination of whether its position
in the judicial proceeding "was substantially justified" under the
applicable statute. Read
more...
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 18,
2007
US
v. Thrasher, No. 05-35929
In the Ninth circuit, if a
district court errs by violating the rule of mandate, the error is a
jurisdictional one. Read
more...
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 16,
2007
Mink v. Suthers,
No. 04-1496
A suit was brought for prospective
relief and damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, and for violations
of the Privacy Protection Act, arising from an investigation of
plaintiff for potential violations of Colorado's criminal libel
statute via an internet-based journal parodying a professor's views.
Dismissal of plaintiff's claims is affirmed in part but reversed in
part where: 1) as defendant-DA's office disavowed an intent to
prosecute plaintiff, he lacked standing for his facial challenge to
the state's criminal libel statute and his claim was moot; 2)
dismissal of his statutory claim was proper for failure to state a
claim; but 3) dismissal of a damages claim arising from a police
search was error as it was not barred by absolute immunity. Read
more...
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 16,
2007
Moseley v. Bd. of
Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Sch., No. 06-2157
In an
action against a city public school district raising claims under
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the
Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, an
appeal from summary judgment for defendant is dismissed as all of
plaintiff's claims were now moot. Read
more...
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 17,
2007
Butler v.
Compton, No. 06-1274
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983
action alleging that defendant-officer violated plaintiff's Fourth
Amendment rights by using deception to gain entry into his motel
room and arresting him without a warrant, summary judgment for
defendant is reversed where the district court erred in applying
Heck to bar the action. A conviction on unrelated charges cannot
form the basis for the application of Heck where there is no
challenge to such conviction in the section 1983 action. Read
more...
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 18,
2007
Florence
v. Crescent Res., LLC, No. 06-13587, 06-13588, 06-13589,
06-14206
In case involving question of fraudulent
joinder of a resident defendant in the context of removal
jurisdiction, denial of plaintiffs' motions to remand, dismissal of
non-diverse defendant, and judgment for defendant is vacated as the
district court erred in holding that non-diverse defendant was
fraudulently joined, and the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction since complete diversity did not exist. Read
more...
Supreme Court of California, April 16,
2007
Murphy
v. Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc., No. S140308
In the
context of workplace-related claims for meal and rest periods, the
"additional hour of pay" provided for in Labor Code section 226.7
constitutes a wage or premium pay subject to a three-year statute of
limitations, and not a penalty subject to a one-year statute of
limitations. Read
more...
Supreme Court of California, April 16,
2007
Fireside
Bank v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No.
S139171
In a class action brought against a bank
arising out of certain debt collection attempts, a court of appeals'
judgment denying bank's challenge to a ruling on the substantive
merits of the action is reversed where the trial court abused its
discretion in ruling on the merits concurrent with deciding that a
class could be certified, but before class notice had gone out. Read
more...
Supreme Court of Texas, April 20, 2007
Low
v. Henry, No. 04-0452
In an appeal involving the
imposition of sanctions under chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice
and Remedies Code, a court of appeals' judgment finding that
sanctions against an attorney were inappropriate is reversed and
remanded where, although the attorney who filed the petition in the
underlying case obtained and directed the review of evidence that
disproved some of the allegations pled against some of the
defendants, the trial court abused its discretion in not providing a
sufficient basis to support imposition of a $50,000 penalty. Read
more...
Supreme Court of Texas, April 20, 2007
Baylor
Univ. v. Sonnichsen, No. 04-0851
In a employment
dispute between Baylor University and a women's volleyball coach, a
court of appeals' ruling finding that the coach presented sufficient
evidence of a fraud claim and that the trial court abused its
discretion by sustaining a special exception without giving him
another opportunity to amend his pleadings is reversed where: 1) the
trial court did not abuse its discretion by sustaining Baylor's
special exception on breach of contract claims; and 2) it correctly
granted summary judgment in favor of Baylor on the fraud claim. Read
more...
Supreme Court of Texas, April 20, 2007
IRA
Res., Inc. v. Griego, No. 05-0469
In a securities
case in which petitioner filed a special appearance challenging
personal jurisdiction, denial of the challenge is reversed where
petitioner's actions do not constitute the "purposeful availment"
required to exercise specific jurisdiction. Read
more...
Supreme Court of Texas, April 20, 2007
US
v. Boateng, No. 05-0752
In a case in which the
United States filed a bill of review asserting that a default
garnishment judgment rendered against its Medicare intermediary
should be set aside on sovereign immunity grounds, petitions for
review of a decision reversing a grant of the bill of review are
granted where fact issues remained regarding the extent of the
United States' and the intermediary's sovereign immunity claims. Read
more...
California Appellate Districts, April 16,
2007
Amalgamated
Bank v. Superior Ct. (Corinthian Homes), No.
C052156
The standard for deciding whether to issue a
writ of mandate vacating a postjudgment expungement order is whether
a petitioner’s real property claim has probable validity. This is
done by assessing whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie
case for reversal of the judgment, based on the record in the trial
court and the arguments of the parties. Read
more...
California Appellate Districts, April 18,
2007
McKinnon
v. Otis Elevator Co., No. C051752
In the context of
workers’ compensation and an employer’s subrogation action against
an alleged third-party tortfeasor, when an employer fails to
adequately notify its employee of its subrogation lawsuit and
proposed settlement involving the alleged third-party tortfeasor and
fails to obtain the employee’s consent to the settlement of that
suit, and when the settling alleged third-party tortfeasor, prior to
settlement, was or reasonably should have been aware of the
possibility of the employee’s claim for damages against the
tortfeasor, the alleged tortfeasor cannot use the mere settlement
and dismissal of the employer’s subrogation action to bar the
employee from maintaining their own action for damages against the
alleged tortfeasor. Read
more...
California Appellate Districts, April 19,
2007
Rossco
v. Bank of Am., No. B189963
In case where trial
judge had conversations with dispute resolution providers about
possible employment, vacatur of order compelling arbitration and
arbitration award itself is reversed as to the arbitration award as
it was premature. Read
more...
