Case Summaries

[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.

[04/29] Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
In a class action lawsuit against an insurance corporation challenging the sale of its fixed deferred annuities, an order, which effectively prevents defendant from proceeding with any settlement negotiations on similar class action claims raised in any other courts without permission from plaintiff's lead counsel, is reversed where: 1) in the context of the All Writs Act, there was no proper support for the district court's enjoining of proceedings in other courts; and 2) even if there were, the Anti-Injunction Act barred such injunction.

[04/25] Kirschbaum vs. Reliant Energy, Inc.
Certification of a class and grant of corporate defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims related to plaintiff-employee's ERISA class action is affirmed where: 1) even if defendants had a fiduciary duty to liquidate a particular investment option in the plan (defendant-company's stock fund) and cease purchasing its shares, notwithstanding the plan's express contrary requirements; nevertheless, 2) plaintiff fell short of bearing his heavy burden to rebut the presumption that defendants satisfied their legal duties.

More...

[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] Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)

[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...

[05/09] Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board
Mall's petition for review of a National Labor Relations Board order, which held that it was a violation of a party's free speech rights under the California Constitution to require a permit applicant to agree not to urge consumers to boycott any of the mall's tenants as a condition to obtaining a permit to engage in expressive activities at the mall, is denied where petitioner failed to raise its constitutional arguments before the circuit court in prior proceedings, and waited until it petitioned the California Supreme Court for a rehearing.

[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...

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

[04/30] Clark v. Time Warner Cable
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction permits a district court to refer a claim raising a novel and technical question of federal telecommunications policy to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for its consideration in the first instance.

[04/30] Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
In a case applying the accrual and statute of limitations provisions of the Massachusetts U.C.C. to breach of warranty claims brought against an engine manufacturer, dismissal of plaintiff's warranty and Massachusetts Gen. Laws chapter 93A claims as time-barred, as well as summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's negligence claims, are affirmed where: 1) the breach of warranty claim, accruing on the date of delivery of goods, was filed after the expiration of the limitations period, and plaintiff's equitable estoppel arguments were unavailing; and 2) plaintiff made no compelling argument and cited no specific facts which would invalidate the exculpatory language contained in a negligence exclusion clause.

More...

[05/08] Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)

[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] B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc.
In an antitrust case involving the legality of an agreement which established an exclusive network of preferred providers to supply types of medical equipment to enrollees in certain health-benefits plans offered to Chrysler, Ford, and state employees and retirees, a judgment and sanctions against plaintiff whose application to the network was rejected are affirmed, and appellate sanctions imposed, where: 1) plaintiff's antitrust claims lacked any conceivable merit; 2) a challenge to a discovery order failed; and 3) sanctions imposed below were not an abuse of discretion, and further, appellate sanctions were warranted.

More...

[04/25] Casden Park La Brea Retail LLC v. v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc.
A neutral arbitrator who has no pecuniary interest in profits generated by his employer's business relationship with a party or a party's representative has no substantial business relationship with the party or its representative and, therefore, no duty to disclose such transactions.

[04/21] Daybreak Group, Inc. v. Three Creeks Ranch, LLC.
An order quashing plaintiff's service of summons on defendant is affirmed where the trial court did not err in considering a motion to quash on its merits, as defendant was properly represented in the lower court by an attorney licensed to practice law in California.

[04/11] Buntion v. Quarterman
Grant of conditional habeas relief on a claim of judicial bias from a conviction for capital murder and death sentence is vacated and relief denied where: 1) although various comments and actions by the trial judge both on and off the bench were highly improper; nevertheless, 2) under the AEDPA's highly deferential standard, a state habeas court's decision was neither an unreasonable application of controlling Supreme Court precedent, nor did it involve an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.

More...

[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.

[04/30] Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner
In a case considering whether, for purposes of worker's compensation insurance, persons who made deliveries of newspapers for a newspaper publisher were independent contractors or employees, the court of appeals finds that the specific facts of this case and relevant case law supported a conclusion that the carriers were employees, and not independent contractors.

[04/29] Ramirez v. Murdick
In an action wherein plaintiff filed a Huffman claim seeking liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs for the late payment of worker's compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Superior Court did not err in its interpretation and application of Workers' Compensation Act, 19 Del. C. sections 2357 and 2362(c); and 2) although the Superior Court erred in converting employer's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless.

More...

[04/30] Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
In a case applying the accrual and statute of limitations provisions of the Massachusetts U.C.C. to breach of warranty claims brought against an engine manufacturer, dismissal of plaintiff's warranty and Massachusetts Gen. Laws chapter 93A claims as time-barred, as well as summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's negligence claims, are affirmed where: 1) the breach of warranty claim, accruing on the date of delivery of goods, was filed after the expiration of the limitations period, and plaintiff's equitable estoppel arguments were unavailing; and 2) plaintiff made no compelling argument and cited no specific facts which would invalidate the exculpatory language contained in a negligence exclusion clause.

[04/21] Seven Up Pete Venture v. Schweitzer
Dismissal of a state takings claims arising out of a state ban on open-pit mining for gold or silver by the cyanide heap leaching process is affirmed where the Eleventh Amendment bars a reverse condemnation action brought in federal court against state officers in their official capacities.

[04/17] Kotrous v. Goss-Jewett Co. of N. California
The circuit court finds that Atlantic Research overruled the holding in Pinal Creek Group v. Newmont Mining Corp., 118 F.3d 1298 (9th Cir. 1997), that an action between so-called potentially responsible parties is necessarily for contribution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and not cost recovery. Consequently, the judgments in two separate actions seeking recovery of costs associated with the cleanup of hazardous waste sites are vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

More...

[05/02] Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
In a suit against 7-Eleven under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), summary judgment for 7-Eleven is affirmed in part, but vacated in part and remanded where: 1) the district court properly granted summary judgment to 7-Eleven on the issues of whether the store's aisle width and the store's refusal to allow him to access the employees-only restroom violated the ADA; but 2) contrary to the ruling below, plaintiff had standing to challenge the barriers to his wheelchair access in the 7-Eleven store that he learned about through his expert's site inspections. (Superseding opinion)

[04/25] Parish Oil Co., Inc. v. Dillon Cos., Inc.
Under a now-amended Colorado unfair competition statute, a grocery store may sell gasoline below cost if such sales are conditioned on the purchase of enough groceries above cost that the entire series of transactions comes in at a profit. Consequently, a judgment in favor of competitors challenging such a practice is reversed.

[02/29] Metters v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
In an action against an employer for racial discrimination and harassment in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act where employer alleged that employee entered into a binding arbitration agreement when he filled out a dispute resolution form, denial of employer's motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where the record contained substantial evidence to support a finding of no valid agreement to arbitrate the discrimination claim.

More...

[04/30] Delaware Valley Surgical Supply Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson
In an interlocutory appeal stemming from a disagreement between two different groups of plaintiffs about who has standing as a "direct purchaser" to bring a claim against Johnson & Johnson and subsidiaries under federal antitrust laws, a judgment ruling against plaintiff-hospital is affirmed as it lacked standing to pursue an antitrust claim under a direct purchaser theory.

[04/07] Rawoof v. Texor Petroleum Co., Inc.
In a suit alleging that defendant violated the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act by terminating plaintiff's gas station's motor-fuel franchise without the statutorily required notice and cause, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the shareholder-standing rule barred plaintiff from pursuing the case since he lacked a direct, personal injury independent of the derivative injury of a shareholder generally, and failed to bring himself within one of the recognized exceptions to the rule. Denial of defendant's request for attorney's fees is affirmed where plaintiff's action was not frivolous.

[03/19] Gen. Injectables & Vaccines, Inc. v. Gates
A decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals affirming the termination of a government contract for default is affirmed over wholesale pharmaceutical and supply distributor's claims that: 1) its failure to deliver any influenza vaccine did not constitute a default because a condition precedent of the FDA's release of the vaccine had not occurred; and 2) alternatively, if there was a default, it was excused under FAR 52.212-4(f).

More...