Case Summaries

Agriculture

[05/08] In Re: Peanut Crop Ins. Litig.
In an action against the government over the indemnification of losses covered by a privately issued and governmentally backed insurance policy, summary judgment for farmers on breach of contract claims is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) the policy did not create any contractual obligation for insurers to indemnify the farmers for lost peanuts in 2002 at a 31 cent quota rate since it was contingent on 2002 farm poundage quota allocations being made to individual farmers, and such allocations were never made; 2) the prevention doctrine was misapplied since the indemnification of the farmers did not depend on the allocation of quotas by the government; and 3) there was no detrimental reliance since government programs are subject to congressional modification, and the farmers had been notified that there would be revisions to the peanut quota program.

[03/14] Rochester Buckhart Action Group v. Young
A preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from constructing or operating a hog farm on his property is reversed and remanded where the trial court erroneously declined defendant's motion to vacate the injunction as the facts in this case do not establish that the completion of defendant's hog-confinement building constitutes the construction of a "new facility" as defined under the Livestock Management Facilities Act.

More...

Asset Forfeiture

[05/09] U.S. v. Day
A conviction for, inter alia, mail and wire fraud is affirmed in part over claims over error regarding: 1) the exclusion of an expert witness's testimony for failing to meet the requirements under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert; 2) the exclusion of testimony by a witness for failing to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C)(ii); 3) an increase in the sentencing level based on a determination that defendant had caused a loss greater than the ones included in the indictment; 4) an obstruction of justice sentence enhancement; 5) a sentence enhancement for abuse of trust; and 6) a sentence enhancement based on the number of victims involved. However, decisions denying the government's requests for forfeiture and a money judgment are reversed as: 1) criminal forfeiture is available for general mail and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. sections 1341 and 1343, and not only for mail and wire fraud affecting financial institutions; and 2) money judgments are appropriate in the criminal forfeiture context.

[05/06] US v. Brodie
A conviction and sentence for wire fraud and conspiracy to obtain mortgage loans using false statements is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the district court's sustaining an objection to defense counsel's closing argument impugning a witness' veracity from facts not in the record; 2) the prosecution's failure to disclose possible impeachment evidence until seven days after trial; 3) improper application of a four-point "leader or organizer" enhancement to defendant's offense level; 4) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from a failure to request a downward departure based on defendant's immigration status; 5) insufficient evidence; 6) counsel's failure to move for a judgment acquittal; 7) qualification of one of the witnesses as an expert; 8) violations of the Speedy Trial Act; 9) improper venue; 10) admission of documentary evidence by agreement of the parties without the opportunity for defendant to cross-examine witnesses; 11) a forfeiture order; and 12) other arguments which were abandoned on appeal because they amounted to conclusionary statements.

More...

Banking Law

[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.

[05/07] Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc.
In a patent infringement action involving automated financial account processing systems, summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendants is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the construction of "remote interface" only encompasses publicly-accessible computer equipment and not consumer owned personal computers; 2) thus, defendant-Federated was entitled to summary judgment; 3) defendants-TD Ameritrade and HSBC were entitled to summary judgment only with respect to systems that are accessed solely via consumer-owned personal computers; but 4) further proceedings were required as to those defendants based on certain modified claim constructions.

More...

Bankruptcy Law

[05/08] Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.
In an action against a bank involving allegations that plaintiffs' were wrongfully evicted and their property improperly foreclosed upon, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' section 1983 claims constituted a de facto appeal of a state court decision and were therefore barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and 2) plaintiffs' collateral attack on a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction was unavailing, and thus, defendant-bank did not violate 11 U.S.C. section 362 in foreclosing on plaintiffs' property.

[05/08] In re: Straightline Invs., Inc.
A judgment under 11 U.S.C. section 549(a) avoiding the transfer to appellant of corporate bankruptcy debtor's accounts receivable which had a face value of approximately $200,600 is affirmed over appellant's claims that: 1) the transfer of accounts receivable was not an avoidable transfer because there was no depletion or diminution of debtor's estate; 2) the transfer was an outright sale of receivables in the ordinary course of business, and the defenses of recoupment and earmarking should apply to bar recovery by the trustee; and 3) even if it was avoidable, the wrong measure of recovery was awarded.

More...

Contracts

[05/08] Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
In proceedings arising after the NLRB brought a complaint alleging that, by attempting to enforce certain provisions of a collective bargaining agreement with DHL Airways, petitioner-pilots' association had committed unfair labor practices, the association's petition for review of a finding that its conduct violated the National Labor Relations Act is granted where, under the analysis of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, the NLRB did not have jurisdiction over this Railway Labor Act dispute.

[05/08] In Re: Peanut Crop Ins. Litig.
In an action against the government over the indemnification of losses covered by a privately issued and governmentally backed insurance policy, summary judgment for farmers on breach of contract claims is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) the policy did not create any contractual obligation for insurers to indemnify the farmers for lost peanuts in 2002 at a 31 cent quota rate since it was contingent on 2002 farm poundage quota allocations being made to individual farmers, and such allocations were never made; 2) the prevention doctrine was misapplied since the indemnification of the farmers did not depend on the allocation of quotas by the government; and 3) there was no detrimental reliance since government programs are subject to congressional modification, and the farmers had been notified that there would be revisions to the peanut quota program.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[05/09] US v. Martinez
In a sentencing proceeding wherein the district court applied a four-level enhancement to defendant's base offense level after finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant had used or possessed a firearm in connection with another felony offense, judgment is affirmed where: 1) the district court applied the correct standard of proof to the facts supporting the enhancement; 2) the sentence imposed was reasonable; and 3) the doctrine of constitutional avoidance did not apply to invalidate the sentence imposed.

[05/09] US v. Regalado
Sentence for conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base is remanded where: 1) in light of the holding in Kimbrough, it was unclear whether the district court would have imposed a non-Guidelines sentence had it been aware of the Guidelines' advisory nature, and that it had the discretion to deviate from the Guidelines; and 2) the absence of that information precluded a review for plain error.

More...

Education

[05/07] Moore v. Forrest City Sch. Dist.
In a Title VII action against an employer alleging claims of racial discrimination and retaliation, judgment for employer is affirmed where: 1) the employer offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons behind its hiring and promoting decisions, and plaintiff failed to establish they were pretextual; and 2) plaintiff could not claim that her failure to be promoted was evidence of retaliation, as she chose not to apply for the position at issue.

[05/02] Savedoff v. Access Group, Inc.
In a class action raising breach of contract claims, partial summary judgment for plaintiff on the issue of liability on such claims is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) the language of the contract did not limit defendant's collection of additional interest to a borrower's final monthly payment at the end of the loan term; 2) the language of the contract did not prohibit defendant from collecting additional interest from borrower's regular monthly payments; and 3) the contract was silent as to the application of borrower's monthly payments to the additional interest before applying them to reduce the principal balance.

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...

Family Law

[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.

[05/06] In re Domestic Partnership of Ellis and Arriaga
Under the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 and consistent with the rationale in Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 36 Cal.4th 824 (2005), a person's reasonable, good faith belief that his or her domestic partnership was validly registered with the California Secretary of State entitles that person to the rights and responsibilities of a registered domestic partner, even if the registration never took place.

More...

Government Benefits

[05/07] Wrenn v. Astrue
A district court's determination that the combined attorney's fees for representation before the Social Security Administration (SSA) and on appeal to a district court cannot exceed 25% of past-due benefits is reversed and remanded where the Commissioner and the court have the authority to independently determine the appropriate attorney's fees, and the 25% limitation on fees for court representation is not itself limited by the amount of fees awarded by the Commissioner.

[05/06] Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[05/09] Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold and Easement etc.
In an action claiming that plaintiff has lost and is continuing to lose natural gas stored in its Elk Basin Storage Reservoir due to the operation of gas production wells owned by defendants, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the condemnation claim was properly dismissed, but on the ground that it failed to state a claim; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim; and 3) state law claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A natural gas company may not condemn additional property that is not specifically described in its existing certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN), even if the natural gas company seeks to acquire such property in order to operate and maintain an existing storage facility.

[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.

More...

Judgment Enforcement

[04/04] Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng'r and Trainmen etc. v. CSX Transp., Inc.
A request for interpretation of an arbitration award does not toll the running of the statute of limitations under section 151 of the Railway Labor Act (RLA). In a case where the statute of limitations under section 151 of RLA expired before plaintiff sought to enforce an arbitration award in the district court, dismissal of the enforcement action is affirmed where: 1) the award expressly provided the time of compliance and date which the cause of action accrued; 2) the district judge did not err in dismissing the enforcement action as barred by the limitations period; and 3) equitable tolling did not apply.

[03/28] Floyd v. Paulson
Denial of a motion to enforce a judgment granting retired criminal investigators from the US Secret Service an increase in retirement benefits is affirmed where plaintiff's former position was explicitly excluded from the definition of the category of employees entitled to an increase in benefits.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[05/09] McCann v. Tillman
In a Title VII suit against an employer alleging claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, summary judgment for employer is affirmed where: 1) the record demonstrated that employee's claims of favorable disparate treatment of similarly situated white employees were inapposite to establish a prima facie case of discrimination; 2) employee failed to meet the burden of showing that the reasons for her employer's actions were actually a pretext for retaliatory conduct; and 3) despite employee's allegations of exposure to offensive derogatory language at work, the evidence presented was insufficient to support a claim of hostile work environment.

[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.

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...

Property Law & Real Estate

[05/09] Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold and Easement etc.
In an action claiming that plaintiff has lost and is continuing to lose natural gas stored in its Elk Basin Storage Reservoir due to the operation of gas production wells owned by defendants, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the condemnation claim was properly dismissed, but on the ground that it failed to state a claim; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim; and 3) state law claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A natural gas company may not condemn additional property that is not specifically described in its existing certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN), even if the natural gas company seeks to acquire such property in order to operate and maintain an existing storage facility.

[05/08] Charles A. Pratt Constr. Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Comm'n
In an action wherein plaintiff attempted to set aside a decision by the California Coastal Commission denying a coastal development permit under the California Coastal Act, and sought for damages on regulatory taking grounds, judgment denying a petition for writ of administrative or ordinary mandate and dismissing plaintiff's taking claim as unripe is affirmed where: 1) the agency had the ultimate authority to ensure that coastal development conformed to the policies embodied in the state's Coastal Act; 2) the agency's reasons for denying the permit were well supported by the record; and 3) the agency only issued one formal decision which neither foreclosed the question of what development will be allowed, nor precluded plaintiff from submitting other development plans.

More...