FindLaw News

News

Civil Rights

[09/08] Florida pastor has legal right to burn Qurans
[09/01] New York imam: Mosque fight about Muslim role
[08/19] Germany considering income tax equality for gays
[08/19] Muslim employee: Disney banned her head scarf
[08/19] UK: Adoption charity can't ban gay couples

More...

Personal Injury

[09/08] Colo. wildfire's toll of destroyed homes rises
[09/08] Winds pushing fire through 2 dozen Detroit homes
[09/07] Picking right blood pressure medicine challenging
[09/07] Report: Money can buy you happiness, to a point
[09/07] Montana plane crash revives 'lap child' debate

More...

Case Summaries

Asset Forfeiture

[09/03] Allied Maritime, Inc. v. Descatrade SA
An order vacating the process of maritime attachment and garnishment issued on April 15, 2009 attaching defendant's assets to secure a putative foreign arbitral award and dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over defendant’s bank account in Paris, France, the suspense account created by the bank in response to the attachment order, and any other intangible property arising from an electronic funds transfer.

[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).

[08/27] US v. Ali
District court's conviction of defendant, imposition of a 57-month sentence, and orders of $4.9 million in restitution and $2.56 million in forfeiture, for running a grocery store and a food stamp scam that defrauded the United States Department of Agriculture out of several million dollars, are affirmed for the most part where: 1) the record does not support defendant's claim that during the plea colloquy, the district court failed to ensure that he knew the elements of wire fraud; 2) defendant has not shown that the government's statement about his sentence exposure affected any substantial right; 3) district court's conclusion that defendant had not accepted responsibility was not clear error; 4) district court's factual findings supporting the forfeiture award were not clearly erroneous; 5) district court's restitution order is remanded to correct the restitution award to reflect that the amount proven at the forfeiture proceeding was $4.29 million; and 6) defendant's motion seeking remand for evidentiary hearing is denied.

[08/05] US v. $231,930.00 in US Currency
In an in rem forfeiture action by the government seeking forfeiture of defendant's currency, the order of forfeiture is affirmed where: 1) a traffic violation occurred, creating probable cause for the search of defendant's vehicle; 2) the facts did not show that the officer unconstitutionally extended the legal traffic stop; and 3) defendant made no effort to limit or stop the search once it began.

[08/04] Mesle v. Signed Personal Check No. 730
In claimant's appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion to set aside an entry of default in a forfeiture proceeding against checks drawn on claimant's accounts and funds in those accounts, the order is reversed where the district court erred by holding the movant to a standard inappropriate for determining whether an unrepresented lay party's conduct demonstrated culpability; and made merits decisions as to the movant’s defenses that were premature at this stage of the proceedings, and, moreover, were incorrect.

[08/04] US v. Barr
In the government's suit against defendant and his wife, seeking to foreclose a federal tax lien, created by the couple's debt for unpaid income taxes, against the home that the couple own as tenants by the entirety, district court's determination that foreclosure was appropriate is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly determined that the wife is entitled to fifty percent of the proceeds of the foreclosure sale; and 2) even if the Court in US v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677 (1983) had intended to mandate application of its four-part balancing test prior to any court-ordered foreclosure sale under section 7403, the decision of the district court would still be affirmed as there is no evidence that the district court abused its discretion.

More...

Civil Rights

[09/08] Adrian v. Yorktown
In an action alleging that defendant-town, through its town supervisor and other policy-making officials, maintained an official policy under which the plaintiffs were denied the right to develop their property, and subsequently retaliated against for their exercise of their First Amendment rights, a district court's order denying post-verdict interest is vacated where, if a mandate reinstating a jury verdict does not order entry of a judgment in a specific dollar amount, and also makes no mention of interest, the district court retains the power to award post-verdict interest on remand.

[09/08] Rhodes v. Robinson
In an action alleging that prison guards violated plaintiff's civil rights by retaliating against him for exercising his First Amendment right to pursue the prison grievance process against them, a dismissal of the complaint is reversed in part where the new claims in plaintiff's second amended complaint (SAC) should not have been dismissed, because they were properly exhausted before he tendered his SAC to the district court for filing.

[09/08] Alvarado-Santos v. Dep't of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer, claiming national origin and gender discrimination under Title VII, jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff is reversed as defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because, based on the evidence presented at trial, no reasonable jury could find that the nonrenewal of plaintiff's contract was based on her gender and/or national origin.

[09/08] Grider v. Auburn
In an action by plaintiffs who owned a bar/restaurant in Auburn, Alabama, against City of Auburn and City employees under state tort law and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, claiming that the City and its agents filed false bribery charges and selectively enforced regulatory laws in order to harm plaintiffs' business, a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed in part where, absent the offering of funds, there was no bribery and no arguable probable cause for defendant-officer to arrest plaintiff. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiffs lacked evidence that the city defendants conspired with the officer to maliciously prosecute plaintiff.

[09/07] Wilson v. Rees
District court's dismissal, as untimely, of an inmate's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit challenging Kentucky's lethal injection protocol under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments is affirmed as Bowling v. Ky. Dept. of Corrections, 301 S.W.3d 478, (Ky. 2009), and its aftermath do not disrupt the district court's holding that defendant's complaint is barred by the statute of limitations.

[09/07] Payne v. Salazar
In an action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII, dismissal of the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is affirmed in part where the district court properly held that plaintiff failed to exhaust one of her claims. However, the order is reversed in part where an employee's right to trial de novo -- whether her employer is the federal government or a private company -- means that she is entitled to a plenary trial of whatever claims she brings to court, and it does not mean that she must sue on claims she has no interest in pursuing.

More...

Class Actions

[09/07] Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger
In a class action against California officials with responsibility over the corrections system and parole proceedings, seeking accommodations to plaintiffs' disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Constitution, the district court's order granting plaintiffs' motion to require defendants to track and accommodate the needs of class members housed in county jails and to ensure a workable grievance procedure for such class members is affirmed in part where: 1) defendants were responsible for providing reasonable accommodations to the disabled prisoners and parolees they housed in county jails; and 2) the district court made the findings required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) regarding the necessity for relief and the narrowness and lack of intrusiveness of the relief order. However, the order is vacated in part where injunctions, whether controlled by the PLRA or otherwise, required evidence of rights violations commensurate with the scope of the relief being ordered.

[08/25] Fireside Bank Cases
In coordinated class actions challenging a lender's collection practices, trial court's entry of dismissals with prejudice against all class members against whom the lender had previously secured judgments in separate collection actions is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' contention that the trial court was empowered by the UCL to grant class-wide relief to judgment debtors without a factual showing of grounds to avoid the judgments against them is rejected, and, since no other basis for relief on their behalf was ever suggested, the court did not err by concluding that the UCL afforded no basis for the class-wide affirmative relief sought in this class action; and 2) the appeal is dismissed as moot insofar as it is taken from orders denying leave to intervene and refusing to certify a subclass consisting of judgment debtors.

[08/24] Holster v. Gatco, Inc.
In a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) to the extent that the Second Circuit's prior holding was based on treating the TCPA "as if it were a state law," Shady Grove's holding that Rule 23 generally preempts C.P.L.R. 901(b) abrogated the court's holding; and 2) the TCPA constituted a delegation by Congress to the states of considerable power to determine which causes of action lie under the TCPA.

[08/23] Gutierrez v. California Commerce Club, Inc.
In plaintiffs' putative class action lawsuit against California Commerce Club, Inc. (Club), claiming that they and other similarly situated members of the class were injured by defendant's unlawful policy and practice of denying meal and rest breaks to certain hourly, non-union employees, trial court's order sustaining defendant's demurrer without leave to amend is reversed as it was premature for the trial court to make determinations pertaining to class suitability on demurrer as plaintiffs' allegations of the operative complaint were sufficient to move the action beyond the pleading stage.

[08/20] Schleicher v. Wendt
In a securities-fraud suit against some managers of a large, publicly traded financial-services holding company, district court's conclusion that investors can use the fraud-on-the-market doctrine as a replacement for person-specific proof of reliance and causation in granting the class certification is affirmed as, the district court assured itself that the market for the company's stock was thick enough to transmit defendants' statements to investors by way of the price, and as such, the district court did not commit a legal error, or abuse of discretion, in deciding that the fraud-on-the-market doctrine should not be conscripted to serve some other function.

[08/18] Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC
In an action against credit reporting agencies alleging violations of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) because the face of plaintiff's superior court complaint lacked any indication of the amount in controversy, it did not trigger the first thirty-day removal period; 2) because section 1785.25(a) was the only substantive CCRAA furnisher provision specifically saved by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, plaintiff's section 1785.25(f) claim was preempted; and 3) unless plaintiff raised a genuine issue as to whether the disputed item was inaccurate, her CCRAA section 1785.16 claims failed as a matter of law.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[09/08] Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co.
In plaintiffs' suit against several manufacturers of welding supplies, claiming that the fumes from their products had caused his parkinsonism and that labels on the products had failed to warn of the danger, jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiffs is reversed as the district court exceeded its discretion in admitting an expert's opinion that the manufacturers' products triggered "manganese-induced parkinsonism" in plaintiff, because the "knowledge" requirement of Rule 702 requires more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation.

[09/08] Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Univ. Crop Protection Alliance, LLC
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that a pollution exclusion in defendant's insurance policy relieved plaintiff of any obligation to defend or indemnify defendant, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) in the insurance policy coverage context, a declaratory judgment action is ripe irrespective of whether the underlying litigation is ongoing or resolved; and 2) the underlying complaint made clear the relofted particulates at issue were toxic, and therefore, would qualify as "pollutants" under the policy.

[09/08] Wilcox v. Homestake Mining Co.
In an action brought under the Price-Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. section 2210, claiming that plaintiffs suffered cancer due to exposure to radiation from defendants' uranium mill, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) there was no basis in New Mexico law for extending the exception to the but-for causation requirement beyond the limited bounds the court described in interpreting the Restatement view under Colorado law in June; and 2) to the extent Tafoya altered the but-for test in situations where a defendant's actions aggravated but did not cause an injury, it was not applicable in this case.

[09/08] Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.
In an action alleging that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), working in concert with other government agencies and officials of foreign governments, operated an extraordinary rendition program to gather intelligence by apprehending foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorist activities and transferring them in secret to foreign countries for detention and interrogation by U.S. or foreign officials, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the Reynolds state secret privilege may be asserted at any time, even at the pleading stage; and 2) at least some of the matters the government sought to protect from disclosure in the litigation were valid state secrets, which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged.

[09/08] U.S. ex rel. Poteet v. Bahler Med., Inc.
In plaintiff's qui tam action against 120 spine surgeons and eighteen medical device distributors claiming that defendants defrauded the federal government by unlawfully promoting the medical products of plaintiff's former employer and its parent company, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in holding that the False Claims Act's (FCA) public disclosure provision barred her claims against the doctor defendants; 2) as used in the statute, "hearing" is synonymous with "proceeding," and because a disclosure in a civil complaint is a disclosure in a civil proceeding, the disclosures emanate from a statutorily listed source; 3) plaintiff's qui tam action is "based upon" the prior disclosures of fraud; 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice; and 5) district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint.

[09/03] Campbell v. Davol, Inc.
In plaintiff's product liability suit against defendants claiming that a hernia patch that was surgically placed in her abdomen following breast reconstructive surgery was defective, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to the issue of successor liability; 2) district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the post-sale failure to warn claim as there was no contractual relationship to provide services to customers who purchased the hernia patch from the manufacturer; and 3) there is no err in finding plaintiff's claims against defendant were barred by Texas law.

More...