Legal News

Case Summaries

Civil Procedure

[09/05] Townsend v. University of Alaska
In a case interpreting the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) as applied to state employers, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) USERRA does not unequivocally abrogate states' sovereign immunity from suits by citizens in federal court; and 2) USERRA creates no cause of action against individual state employee-supervisors.

[09/05] Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg
In a lawsuit by a corporation against its officers and attorneys, order granting defendant's application to file a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, motion is reversed, vacated, and remanded with directions to deny defendant's application to file an anti-SLAPP motion where: 1) defendant failed to provide a compelling explanation for why he did not file an anti-SLAPP motion earlier in the case; 2) defendant did not articulate any extenuating circumstances justifying a late filing; and 3) under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant's application to file the anti-SLAPP motion.

[09/05] Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia v. Gunter
In a claim by plaintiff-Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia seeking reimbursement of insurance benefits paid to defendant from his settlement with a third party, dismissal by district court is affirmed where: 1) Blue Cross failed to establish that this case is not governed by the general rule in Empire Health Choice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh; and 2)the court lacks federal question jurisdiction to hear the case.

More...

Constitutional Law

[09/05] Wong v. Bush
In a case alleging First Amendment and National Environmental Protection Act violations by the U.S. Coast Guard in establishing safety zones insulating a private super-ferry from blockade by local protesters, denial of declaratory judgment is affirmed despite plaintiff's standing to sue where: 1) the safety zones established by the Coast Guard did not violate the First Amendment; and 2) the Coast Guard need not consider the secondary environmental effects of the super-ferry itself in the decision to establish safety zones.

[09/05] Woodruff v. Mason
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit alleging that state social-services employees had retaliated against plaintiff-healthcare provider by instigating the launch of a predatory enforcement campaign aimed at driving plaintiff out of business, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal link between its protected First Amendment activity and the alleged retaliation by defendants; and 2) plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to substantiate any of its three equal-protection claims.

[09/05] Miner v. Clinton County
In cases alleging violations of due process and equal protection stemming from defendant county's foreclosure of plaintiffs' properties as a result of unpaid property taxes, grant of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) due process does not require actual notice of foreclosure; 2) defendants' actions were reasonably calculated under the circumstances to provide notice of foreclosure; 3) plaintiffs were not entitled to additional notice of default judgment where the previous notice of foreclosure met the requirements of due process; 4) defendants did not violate plaintiffs' rights to due process and equal protection of the laws by refusing to accept redemption after default judgment was entered or refusing to grant plaintiffs a share in the surplus from a tax sale; and 5) there is no merit in plaintiffs' claim that reasonable restrictions on the method of payment of long overdue taxes, such as requiring payment by cash, money order, or certified check, violate due process.

More...

ERISA

[09/02] McCarter v. Ret. Plan for the Dist. Managers of the Am. Family Ins. Group
In a suit alleging that plaintiffs-employees were harmed when defendant-employer forced them, upon termination, to choose within 90 days whether to elect a lump-sum cash distribution equivalent to the value of their pensions, dismissal for lack of standing is affirmed as a dismissal on the merits, and appeal is dismissed as to award of attorneys' fees, where: 1) plaintiffs asserted an injury and therefore had standing to bring their claim; but 2) defendant did not impose a significant detriment on plaintiffs for choosing a cash distribution; and 3) the award of attorneys' fees was not final, and thus not appealable, prior to the determination of an amount.

[08/29] In Re: APA Transp. Corp. Consol. Litig.
In a suit alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and ERISA by a trucking company that shut down, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiffs-benefit plans were not "persons" with standing to sue under the WARN Act; 2) defendants did not constitute a "single employer" for WARN Act purposes; and 3) defendant did not produce evidence to demonstrate that it qualified for the "faltering company" exception to the WARN Act notice requirement.

[08/28] In Re: Lucent Death Benefits ERISA Litig.
In a putative class-action suit relating to the termination of a pensioner death benefit, dismissal for failure to state a claim is affirmed where the death benefit was an unvested welfare benefit that the employer could terminate without violating ERISA or unilateral contract principles.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[09/05] Sindecuse v. Katsaros
In a case alleging common law fraud surrounding a stock purchase, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the allegedly fraudulent statements could not support claims of fraud because they were: 1) predictions of the future; and 2) a promise of future action not accompanied by a present intent not to perform.

[09/05] Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg
In a lawsuit by a corporation against its officers and attorneys, order granting defendant's application to file a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, motion is reversed, vacated, and remanded with directions to deny defendant's application to file an anti-SLAPP motion where: 1) defendant failed to provide a compelling explanation for why he did not file an anti-SLAPP motion earlier in the case; 2) defendant did not articulate any extenuating circumstances justifying a late filing; and 3) under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant's application to file the anti-SLAPP motion.

[08/29] Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cellular One Group
In a suit for a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs-insurers did not owe a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer in suits claiming biological injury caused by radiation emitted by its phones, the court relied on its simultaneously-released opinion in Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nokia, No. 06-1030 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008), to hold that plaintiff-insurer had a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer.

More...

Workers' Comp

[09/04] Merritt v. United Parcel Serv.
Decision of Industrial Accident Board to terminate disability plaintiffs paid to claimant by employer is reversed where an admission by employer that claimant's disability was "on-going" was the equivalent of a judicial admission and should have been given conclusive effect.

[09/03] Padilla v. Pomona College
In an action for personal injury and premises liability arising from a worksite injury during the remodel of a dormitory at defendant Pomona College, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) defendants had delegated the task of making the worksite safe to others, and that they did not exercise any retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributed to plaintiff's injuries; 2) California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (Cal-OSHA) regulations did not establish defendants' negligence per se or impose a non-delegable duty on defendants; and 3) that plaintiff's expert testimony lacked foundation.

[08/29] In Re: Poly-America, L.P.
In a retaliatory-discharge case in which plaintiff challenged the grant of defendant's motion to compel arbitration, petition for writ of mandamus is conditionally granted where: 1) provisions of the arbitration agreement prohibiting punitive damages or reinstatement undermined the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act and were void as unconscionable; 2) provisions requiring splitting of arbitration fees between employer and employee and placing limits on discovery were not unconscionable; and 3) the unconscionable provisions of the agreement were severable and the agreement was otherwise enforceable.

More...