Legal News

Case Summaries

Attorney's Fees

[05/13] Tri-State Fin., LLC v. Lovald
In consolidated bankruptcy proceedings wherein the bankruptcy court denied a motion seeking recusal of the bankruptcy judge, approved a settlement negotiation, denied a motion for hearing on the settlement, and approved an award of attorneys' fees, judgment is affirmed where: 1) the recusal motion was made untimely; 2) upon reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement agreement or denying the motion for settlement hearing; and 3) because the fee award was only challenged on the basis of a conflict and not contested as to whether the amount was reasonable, the court did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorneys' fees.

[05/13] Lash v. Hollis
In a civil rights action arising from injuries sustained during an arrest wherein jury awarded damages as well as attorney's fees, denial of a motion for a new damages-phase trial is affirmed, but the attorney's fees award is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the district court did not err in finding that plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to show that defendant's action in subduing him with a Taser induced or contributed to his rhabdomyolysis; 2) Missouri's sudden onset doctrine was inapplicable to underlying case, which involved multiple possible causes, rather than one alleged event preceding the harm; but 3) the record was unclear as to whether the district court considered the relationship between plaintiffs' successful and unsuccessful claims or overall degree of success obtained in determining the fee award.

More...

Commercial Law

[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)

[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.

More...

Contracts

[05/13] Union County, Iowa v. Piper Jaffray & Co., Inc.
In a diversity action wherein the district court certified an interlocutory appeal concerning a discovery order, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the district court abused its discretion in certifying the interlocutory appeal when the statutory requirements were not satisfied.

[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.

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.

[05/09] 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.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[05/13] US v. Johnson
An appeal from an order denying appointment of substitute counsel in a criminal case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the order is: 1) subject to reconsideration by the district court as the prosecution proceeds; and 2) effectively reviewable on appeal after final judgment.

[05/13] US v. Ironi
Conviction for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erred in refusing to admit certain out-of-court statements tending to exculpate him; 2) the district court erred in allowing the government to admit evidence of his prior drug crimes; 3) the district court erred in not giving the jury a buyer-seller instruction; and 4) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.

More...

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[05/05] Perry Homes v. Cull
In an action arising after plaintiffs' home suffered serious structural and drainage problems, an arbitration award in favor of plaintiffs is vacated and remanded where: 1) the issue of waiver of arbitration by litigation conduct is an issue to be decided by courts; 2) waiver must be decided on a case-by-case basis, courts should look to the totality of the circumstances, and such waiver requires a showing of prejudice; and 3) plaintiffs waived arbitration and defendants were prejudiced, in this case.

[05/02] Wabtec Corp. v. Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB
In a licensing agreement dispute involving arbitration issues, appeal from a denial of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction and expedited discovery is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the district court's order was not an appealable interlocutory under the collateral order doctrine or the Federal Arbitration Act.

More...

Elder Law

[05/05] Miller v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
In a suit against American Airlines under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) a collective bargaining agreement did not require that plaintiffs be offered positions of comparable pay past the retirement age; 2) a claim, that a supplement to the collective bargaining agreement governing the retirement of flight engineers was facially discriminatory, was not properly raised before the EEOC.

[03/11] Budnick v. Town of Carefree
In an action raising, inter alia, a claim that defendant-town violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) by denying plaintiffs a Special Use Permit (SUP) to build a multi-level continuing-care retirement community in the town, summary judgment against plaintiffs on the FHAA claim is affirmed where plaintiff failed to establish a discrimination claim under any of the theories of disparate treatment, disparate impact, or a failure to make reasonable accommodations. Potential residents of a retirement community do not presently qualify as disabled under the FHAA simply because some of them will become disabled as they age.

More...

Entertainment

[05/12] Hollywood v. Superior Court
Recusal against a prosecutor for alleged conflicts of interest, arising out of the prosecutor's consultations with the makers of a motion picture based on the defendant's story, is reversed and the case remanded where: 1) the court of appeal gave no deference to the trial court's findings of fact or its application of law to the facts when it chose to review the case de novo; 2) the possibility that the case might be a capital case did not warrant a heightened form of review; 3) the possible disclosure of confidential information when the prosecutor handed over files to the movie producers did not deprive defendant of a fair trial; 3) the prosecutor did not intend to disseminate an inflammatory portrayal of defendant since the prosecutor cooperated with the movie producers before defendant was captured, and the prosecutor sought to have defendant portrayed as accurately as possible in the movie; 4) the prosecutor had no present financial interest in the movie and the possibility of acclaim in high profile cases is endemic to these kinds of cases; and 5) recusal cannot be based on the totality of the circumstances, since an actual conflict is required beyond judicial condemnation of the prosecutor's actions.

[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.

More...

Family Law

[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.

More...

Indian Law

[05/08] US v. Pete
A conviction for second degree murder on an Indian reservation, felony murder, and conspiracy to commit murder, is affirmed where: 1) the entire period from the time defendant filed his "Motion to Recall the Mandate" on December 23, 2004, up until the Supreme Court denied his certiorari petition on June 20, 2005, was excludable; and 2) thus, the Speedy Trial Act (STA) was not violated and a motion to dismiss the indictment was properly denied.

[05/06] House v. Bravo
In habeas proceedings arising from petitioner's conviction for driving while intoxicated, vehicular homicide, and related offenses, denial of the habeas petition is affirmed over challenges alleging that: 1) a transfer of venue improperly eliminated all Native American members from the venire; 2) court misapplied federal law by failing to conduct voir dire before presuming that an entire county venire was tainted by pretrial publicity, and transferring venue; 3) the state's discriminatory use of a New Mexico venue transfer statute constituted a structural error that violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights; 4) the state court erred in its sentencing decision; and 5) the trial court's refusal to recuse at resentencing violated the defendant's right to due process.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[05/13] Union County, Iowa v. Piper Jaffray & Co., Inc.
In a diversity action wherein the district court certified an interlocutory appeal concerning a discovery order, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the district court abused its discretion in certifying the interlocutory appeal when the statutory requirements were not satisfied.

[05/13] Lash v. Hollis
In a civil rights action arising from injuries sustained during an arrest wherein jury awarded damages as well as attorney's fees, denial of a motion for a new damages-phase trial is affirmed, but the attorney's fees award is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the district court did not err in finding that plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to show that defendant's action in subduing him with a Taser induced or contributed to his rhabdomyolysis; 2) Missouri's sudden onset doctrine was inapplicable to underlying case, which involved multiple possible causes, rather than one alleged event preceding the harm; but 3) the record was unclear as to whether the district court considered the relationship between plaintiffs' successful and unsuccessful claims or overall degree of success obtained in determining the fee award.

More...

Judges & Judiciary

[06/30] ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASS'N, INC. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY
The Court denied plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate to disclose records relating to reimbursement of travel expenses for judges and management employees of the Court pursuant to the California Public Records Act, because the Act did not apply to the requested disclosure.

[06/28] US v. PARKER
Evidence seized under a warrant issued by a trial commissioner who was also an administrative assistant at the county jail was properly excluded, because the commissioner was not a neutral and detached party.

More...

Landlord Tenant

[05/06] In the Matter of IG Second Generation Partners L.P. v. New York State Div. of Hous. and Cmty. Renewal
In an appeal addressing whether the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) had the authority to cancel rent arrears owed by a rent-stabilized tenant as a result of DHCR's resolution of an unusually protracted fair market rent appeal, the court of appeals rules that DHCR did not have the authority under the circumstances of this case.

[05/01] P.A. Bldg. Co. v. City of New York
In a landlord-tenant dispute involving whether asbestos abatement costs incurred by the landlord were "operating expenses" under the relevant terms of a commercial lease, judgment for landlord awarding additional rent due including amount of interest accrued is reversed and remanded where: 1) the underlying asbestos abatement costs were not "operating expenses" within the meaning of "escalation provisions" in the lease agreement; and 2) the interest amount on additional rent due should have been calculated from the date which an audit resisted by the landlord was finally commenced.

More...

Probate Trusts

[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.

More...

Professional Malpractice

[05/08] U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.

[04/29] Kaplan v. Mamelak
In an action involving claims of medical malpractice and battery against defendant-neurosurgeon, judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where the trial court erred in: 1) prohibiting discovery on the tolling of the statute of limitations for days which defendant was out of the state; and 2) sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's action for battery on grounds that defendant did not intent to operate beyond plaintiff's consent.

More...

Sentencing

[05/12] U.S. v. Ellis
A conviction and sentence for bank robbery is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) whether the indictment was inadequate for merely citing to the aiding-and-abetting statute without including language describing defendant's role; 2) the reasonableness of his sentence; and 3) violations to his right to a jury by having his sentence enhanced by the judge based on a preponderance of the evidence.

[05/12] US v. Marcano
Sentence for aiding and abetting the receipt and possession of an illegally modified firearm is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not impose a period of incarceration and supervised release involving home confinement in excess of the statutory maximum; 2) defendant's argument that a district court may not impose "any" period of home detention following incarceration was tenuous at best, and he failed to cite any applicable precedent; and 3) in any event, any error was not plain.

More...

Sports Law

[04/29] Roman v. Liberty Univ., Inc.
In a personal injury action, an order granting defendants' motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, as well as on the ground of forum non-conveniens, is affirmed where: 1) a defendant's conduct neither satisfied the "purposeful availment" nor the "relatedness" requirement to be subjected to specific jurisdiction; and 2) another suitable forum was available for plaintiff's action, and the trial court properly balanced the private and public interests for purposes of the forum non-conveniens issue.

[04/15] Borden v. Sch. Dist. of the Township of E. Brunswick
In an action instituted by a football coach alleging that a school district's policy, prohibiting faculty participation in student-initiated prayer, was unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, and violated his First Amendment freedoms, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed and remanded where: 1) the policy was not unconstitutional on its face or as applied to the plaintiff; and 2) plaintiff's silent acts violated the Establishment Clause, as his engagement in the underlying acts would lead a reasonable observer to conclude that plaintiff was endorsing religion.

More...