Case Summaries
Asset Forfeiture
Civil Rights
Class Actions
Injury & Tort Law
Asset Forfeiture
[12/22]
US v. Twenty Miljam-350 IED Jammers
In a case seeking civil in rem forfeiture, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. Section 401(a), of certain communication-jamming devices that the owner was charged with illegally attempting to export, the district court's judgment ordering forfeiture is affirmed where: 1) the claimant's stipulation not to contest forfeiture in exchange for dismissal of a criminal complaint was enforceable; and 2) the claimant lacked Article III standing to oppose the forfeiture because it could not cause him injury.
[11/30]
US v. Martin
In an appeal from an order of the district court directing a criminal forfeiture, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2 and after the appellants were convicted on drug-related offenses, order is affirmed where the Rule 32.2 deadline, as it then existed, is most persuasively understood as a time-related directive rather than a jurisdictional condition, and because appellants were on notice at the time of sentencing that the district court would enter forfeiture orders.
[11/22]
US v. Zorrilla-Echevarria
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing petitioners' application for ancillary hearings to a criminal forfeiture proceedings under 31 U.S.C. sections 5317(c)(1) and 5332(b)(2), judgment is: 1) affirmed in part as to the entry of the money judgment order of forfeiture with respect to defendant; and 2) vacated in part as to the portion of the final order of forfeiture ordering that the attached $543,731 in cash shall be used to satisfy the money judgment.
[11/14]
LA County Metro. Trans. Authority v. Alameda Produce Market, LLC
In an appeal from a judgment of the court of appeals concerning the scope of the waiver provisions of California's "quick-take" eminent domain procedure, Code Civ. Proc. sections 1255.010, 1255.410, judgment is reversed because if a lender holding a lien on condemned property applies to withdraw a portion of a Section 1255.210 deposit, and the property owner does not object to the application, the lender's withdrawal does not constitute a waiver of the property owner's claims and defenses under Section 1255.260.
[11/03]
People v. The North River Ins. Co.
In an appeal from an order granting defendant's motion to set aside summary judgment, discharge forfeiture and exonerate bail, judgment is affirmed where the trial court correctly found that Code of Civil Procedure section 473 applied to the proceeding.
[10/28]
US v. Newman
In appeals from two separate judgments of the district court concerning negotiated criminal forfeitures, judgments are reversed where the court erred in eliminating, or reducing to a trivial amount, the parties' negotiated forfeiture agreements.
More...
Civil Rights
[02/02]
Southerland v. City of New York
In a suit under 42 USC Section 1983 asserting that a New York City children's services caseworker entered the plaintiffs' home unlawfully and effected an unconstitutional removal of children into state custody, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant caseworker is: 1) affirmed with respect to the dismissal of the father's substantive due process claim; but 2) vacated with respect to the father's and his children's Fourth Amendment unlawful-search and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims and the children's unlawful-seizure claim, where the district court wrongfully concluded that the caseworker was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to all of the claims against him.
[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.
[02/02]
Marcavage v. National Park Service
In an action by an abortion protester under 42 USC Section 1983 against the National Park Service, the United States Department of the Interior, and two Park Service rangers, alleging violations of the plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause based on his arrest, the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state claim is affirmed, where: 1) the rangers were entitled to qualified immunity from the First and Fourth Amendment claims; 2) the plaintiff's "class of one" theory of an equal protection violation failed because he was not in all relevant respects like the others who shared the sidewalk on which he was arrested; and 3) the plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were properly dismissed as moot because of a change in Park Service regulations.
[02/02]
Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC
In a suit alleging that a roommate-matching service website’s questions requiring disclosure of sex, sexual orientation and familial status, and its sorting, steering and matching of users based on those characteristics, violate the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the district court's grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, permanent injunction, and order awarding attorney's fees is: 1) vacated in part where plaintiffs had organizational standing; and 2) dismissed in part where the FHA and FEHA do not apply to the sharing of living units because precluding individuals from selecting roommates based on their sex, sexual orientation and familial status raises substantial constitutional concerns, and therefore the defendant's prompting, sorting and publishing of information to facilitate roommate selection is not forbidden by the FHA or FEHA.
[02/01]
McBurney v. Young
In a case brought by non-Virginia residents seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 USC section 1983 against Virginia officials because of their failure to provide the plaintiffs with requested public records on the basis that the plaintiffs were not Virginia residents, grant of summary judgment to the defendants is affirmed, where: 1) the plaintiffs' claim that the Virginia Freedom of Information Act violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the federal constitution could not succeed as a matter of law; 2) the district court did not err in rejecting a dormant Commerce Clause claim.
[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.
More...
Class Actions
[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.
[02/01]
In re American Express Merchants' Litigation
In a class action asserting Sherman Act claims, brought against a charge card issuer whose card acceptance agreement purported to preclude a merchant from bringing a class action lawsuit, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissal of the case is reversed, where the cost of plaintiffs' individually arbitrating their dispute with the defendant would be prohibitive, effectively depriving them of the statutory protections of the antitrust laws, and thus the class action waiver in the arbitration provision was unenforceable.
[02/01]
Muto v. CBS Corp.
In a putative class action complaint brought in New York by Pennsylvania residents against the plaintiffs' former employer and the employer's pension plan for benefits alleged to be due under ERISA, the district court's dismissal of the complaint as time-barred is affirmed, where: 1) the district court was correct in applying New York's borrowing statute directing it to look to Pennsylvania law for the applicable statute of limitations; and 2) plaintiffs' claims were untimely under Pennsylvania law.
[01/25]
Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
In a class action complaint predicated on the defendant's practice of purchasing wholesale motor fuel in gallon units at a standardized temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit, but selling motor fuel to California consumers at an average temperature of approximately 70 degrees, the trial court's order granting the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is reversed, and its order sustaining the defendant's demurrer to the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and unlawful business practices under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) is affirmed in part and reversed in part, where: 1) the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' UCL and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claims pursuant to the judicial abstention doctrine; 2) the plaintiffs had standing to assert, and the complaint stated a cause of action for, violation of the UCL and CLRA; 3) the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of contract; and 4) the trial court did not err in sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim.
[01/24]
Long v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A. Inc.
In a putative class action against a men's clothing retailer alleging that its printing of “EXPIRY: 04/##” on a credit card receipt willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA)'s prohibition against printing the expiration date of the a credit card upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed, where: 1) FACTA prohibits a merchant from printing expiration date information on a receipt provided to the consumer, even if the year is redacted; but 2) the defendant's interpretation of FACTA, although erroneous, was at least objectively reasonable, and thus there was no "willful" violation that could support a claim.
[01/24]
Muldrow v. Surrex Solutions Corp.
In a class action against an employer for failure to pay overtime and failure to provide meal periods to "senior consulting services managers" who worked as employment recruiters, the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant and postjudgment order awarding costs are affirmed, where: 1) the trial court properly determined that the employees were subject to the commissioned employees exemption to the requirement to pay overtime wages; and 2) the trial court did not err in denying the employees' missed meal period claim.
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.
More...
|
