Case Summaries
Contracts
Labor & Employment Law
Administrative Law
Commercial Law
Corporation & Enterprise Law
Elder Law
Probate Trusts
Wills & Trusts
Contracts
[08/19]
Oltman v. Holland Am. Line, Inc.
In an action alleging that plaintiffs both contracted a serious gastrointestinal illness on a cruise ship operated by defendants, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where a contractual one-year limitations period should have been equitably tolled based on plaintiffs' timely filing of a state court action and their prompt filing in federal court after the state action was dismissed based on a forum selection clause.
[08/18]
Golden W. Refining Co. v. SunTrust Bank
In an action brought by plaintiff to draw on a letter of credit issued to it by defendant-bank's predecessor, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed over claims that the district court erred by: 1) holding that the letter of credit was not "perpetual" under Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) section 5-106(d) and thereby had not automatically expired before plaintiff made a draw against it; 2) by rejecting defendant's waiver argument; and 3) by concluding that plaintiff's specific performance and breach of contract claims were not precluded by the exclusive remedies available under Article 5 of the UCC.
[08/18]
Yabsley v. Cingular Wireless, LLC
In a claim that defendant-Cingular engaged in unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 and misleading advertising by failing to inform consumer that a tax would be imposed on the full price of the cellular phone, judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) when specific legislation provides a safe harbor, plaintiffs may not use the general unfair competition law to assault that harbor; 2) a sales invoice Cingular gave to plaintiff stated the amount of the sales tax imposed on the sale and gave plaintiff notice of the amount of sales tax that would imposed; and 3) plaintiff had the right to refuse to enter into the contract for the price stated.
More...
Labor & Employment Law
[08/19]
Tyson v. Gannett Co., Inc.
In an employee's suit alleging racial discrimination and retaliation, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff provided no evidence that she had complied with the requirement to file a charge of racial discrimination with the EEOC prior to bringing a Title VII claim; and 2) plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that a similarly situated white employee was treated more favorably, and thus failed to make out a prima facie case in her 42 U.S.C. section 1981 claim.
[08/19]
King v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co.
In a malicious prosecution suit alleging that defendant fired plaintiff without probable cause to believe that she had stolen train tickets, denial of plaintiff's discovery motion and summary judgment for defendants are affirmed where: 1) a determination by the System Board of Adjustment that plaintiff had stolen from defendant did not preclude litigation of that question in the context of the malicious prosecution suit; but 2) plaintiff failed to produce evidence of the date on which defendant had filed a criminal complaint against her, and thus would not be able to prove her claim that defendant lacked probable cause at the time of the filing.
[08/19]
In Re: Nortel Networks Corp. Securities Litig.
In a matter involving attorneys' fees following settlement of a private securities class action, judgment awarding 3% of the class's recovery to class counsel rather than the requested 8.5% is affirmed where: 1) appellant has waived its argument that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act altered the fee-award scheme for cases covered by the Act by failing to present this argument to the district court; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a reasonable fee under established precedent.
More...
Administrative Law
[08/19]
L.M. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist.
In an action brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, an order requiring school district to reimburse parents for the cost of in-home services for their autistic child and an award of attorney's fees are reversed in part and vacated in part where: 1) the district court failed to consider whether the school district's policy of limiting parents' classroom observational opportunities to twenty minutes was harmless because parents nevertheless had a full opportunity to participate in the process to fashion an appropriate educational plan for their child with help from an informed and knowledgeable expert; and 2) there was no evidence to support a finding that parents' right to participate was "significantly affected".
[08/19]
Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods, L.L.C.
In a class-action suit alleging injury caused by methylmercury and other harmful compounds in defendant's canned tuna products, grant of a motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded where: 1) the FDA had not enacted a pervasive regulatory scheme regarding mercury in tuna that would preempt plaintiff's state-law claims; 2) the FDA's decision not to require warning labels on tuna was not a conclusive determination preempting a state failure-to-warn claim; and 3) the FDA had not expressly rejected mercury warnings as misbranding under federal law.
[08/19]
Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas
A determination by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) of which applications constitute "original applications" for which inter partes reexamination is available under the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) is affirmed where: 1) the PTO's determination was entitled to Chevron deference; and 2) in the absence of clear Congressional intent as to the meaning of "original application," the PTO's interpretation of the term was a reasonable construction.
More...
Commercial Law
[08/19]
DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc.
In a suit alleging infringement of two patents for storing and displaying footwear for customer self-service, summary judgment of non-infringement of one patent and no liability for damages for past infringement of both patents is vacated and remanded where: 1) the finding of non-infringement was based on incorrect construction of claims; and 2) patent infringement is a strict liability offense, and an infringer's reasonable steps and good faith efforts to cease infringing activity are insufficient to avoid damages.
[08/18]
Golden W. Refining Co. v. SunTrust Bank
In an action brought by plaintiff to draw on a letter of credit issued to it by defendant-bank's predecessor, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed over claims that the district court erred by: 1) holding that the letter of credit was not "perpetual" under Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) section 5-106(d) and thereby had not automatically expired before plaintiff made a draw against it; 2) by rejecting defendant's waiver argument; and 3) by concluding that plaintiff's specific performance and breach of contract claims were not precluded by the exclusive remedies available under Article 5 of the UCC.
[08/18]
Am. Needle, Inc. v. Nat'l Football League
In an antitrust case alleging that the NFL's exclusive headwear licensing agreement with Reebok International violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to allow additional discovery was properly denied where plaintiff did not identify the evidence it sought to discover; 2) NFL teams are a "single entity" for purposes of licensing their intellectual property; and 3) as a single entity, the teams were free to license their intellectual property on an exclusive basis.
More...
Corporation & Enterprise Law
[08/19]
Joyce v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
In a suit by shareholders of a telecommunications company alleging that defendant, while advising the company during its acquisition by another company, failed to advise plaintiffs on minimizing their exposure to financial losses, grant of a motion to dismiss is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) plaintiffs were bringing a direct action on their own behalf, not a derivative one on behalf of the corporation, and to that extent had standing; but 2) plaintiffs' constructive fraud claim required them to allege that defendant owed them a fiduciary duty, but no such duty never arose.
[08/15]
CA Inc. v. AFSCME Employees Pension Plan
Two certified questions, arising from an action before the SEC to determine whether respondent-shareholders' proposed bylaw requiring reimbursement of proxy expenses should be included in petitioner-corporation's annual proxy materials, are answered affirmatively where: 1) respondents' proposal was a proper subject for action by shareholders; and 2) the proposal, if adopted, would cause petitioner to violate state law because it would in some cases curtail the directors' ability to fully exercise their fiduciary duties. (Republished Opinion)
[08/12]
In the Matter of Yorkshire LLC
Bankruptcy court's order sanctioning debtors for filing two bankruptcy petitions in bad faith is affirmed where the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that the bankruptcy cases had been filed with a bad motive and with no meaningful thought being given to the actual purposes of Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
More...
Elder Law
[05/13]
Cao v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
In an action wherein plaintiff sought recovery under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for alleged constitutional violations along with several state law causes of action after she was removed from her home, made to undergo a psychological evaluation, and placed in a state institution for the elderly, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's section 1983 claim as untimely; and 2) with no federal cause of action remaining, the district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.
[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...
Probate Trusts
[08/13]
Estate of Thottam
In a mediation matter relating to distribution of assets to the three children of the deceased, judgment is reversed where: 1) there is nothing in Evidence Code section 1123(c) requiring that an express agreement in writing permitting disclosure be contained in a settlement agreement; 2) the court erred in reading a timing requirement into section 1123(c); 3) the mediation and facilitation confidentiality agreement satisfied the exception to mediation confidentiality under section 1123(c); and 4) there was sufficient evidence before the court to establish the preliminary fact that a chart created at the mediation was a settlement agreement for purposes of section 1123(c).
[08/01]
Estate of Molino
In probate proceedings involving appellant's claims that he had valid assignments entitling him to a percentage of respondents' inheritance, summary judgment against appellant is affirmed where: 1) the 1997 agreements were not enforceable as they were void as against public policy; and 2) appellant could not rely on ratification or laches to enforce the agreements.
[07/16]
Perrin v. Lee
In a probate proceeding, denial of plaintiffs' section 21320 safe harbor petition for a determination that their proposed petition to invalidate two trust amendments would not be a contest within the meaning of a no contest clause in a trust is reversed where: 1) the trust did not explicitly state that a contest to an amendment would violate the no contest clause; and 2) the no contest clause was not incorporated by reference into the amendments.
More...
Wills & Trusts
[06/30]
MICHAEL J. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY (ROGERS)
The conservator of the person and the estate of a mentally disabled person who is unable to communicate her wishes does not have the power to initiate and prosecute a petition for the dissolution of her marriage.
[03/12]
E. ARMATA, INC. v. KOREA COMMERCIAL BANK OF NEW YORK
Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), a bank is not liable to the beneficiaries of a PACA trust for receipt of funds in breach of the trust where, having extended revolving overdraft privileges to a produce dealer covered by PACA, the bank routinely applied deposited PACA funds to reduce the negative balance in the produce dealer's overdrawn account.
[03/12]
E. ARMATA, INC. v. KOREA COMMERCIAL BANK OF NEW YORK
Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), a bank is not liable to the beneficiaries of a PACA trust for receipt of funds in breach of the trust where, having extended revolving overdraft privileges to a produce dealer covered by PACA, the bank routinely applied deposited PACA funds to reduce the negative balance in the produce dealer's overdrawn account. (Amended opinion)
More...
|
