Case Summaries

[03/03] Byers v. Intuit, Inc.
In plaintiff's putative class action on behalf of U.S. taxpayers against the IRS and a consortium of companies in the electronic tax preparation and filing industry (FFA) claiming violations of the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA) in the charging of fees in exchange for providing e-filing services, as well as a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, dismissal of both claims is affirmed where: 1) the district court was correct in holding that the IOAA does not apply to the FFA members, as it only applies to a government agency and none of the exceptions in Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 1999) apply; and 2) the district court did not err in dismissing the Sherman Act claim as the FFA members are entitled to conduct-based implied antitrust immunity with respect to the anti-competitive action taken pursuant to the Ceiling Provisions of the 2005 Agreement with the IRS.

[03/02] Orosco v. Napolitano
In an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus to compel defendants to issue him a law enforcement certification showing his cooperation with law enforcement under 28 U.S.C. section 2241, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the language of section 1184(p) made it abundantly clear that the decision to issue a law enforcement certification is a discretionary one.

[03/02] Pfizer v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' action against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law claiming that Pfizer marketed the mouthwash in a misleading manner by representing that the use of it can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis, defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn an order certifying the class action is granted as the ruling certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period is overbroad, and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), does not require a different disposition in this case.

More...

[03/09] George's Inc. v. Allianz Global Risks US Ins. Co.
In an action against an insurer claiming that defendant failed to indemnify plaintiff for business expenses and personal property losses as required under the terms of its insurance policy, partial summary judgment for defendant on the personal property claim is affirmed, but a partial denial of summary judgment on the business expenses claim is reversed where the policy unambiguously excludes coverage for plaintiff's claimed losses.

[03/09] HealthEast Bethesda Hosp. v. United Commercial Travelers of Am.
In an action for breach of an insurance settlement contract, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) defendant was not an unsophisticated party because it had significant experience in handling and negotiating claims with healthcare providers; 2) because defendant bore the risk of mistake, the district court properly denied rescission based on unilateral mistake; and 3) the record of inaction by defendant strongly supported the denial of relief under both unilateral and mutual mistake.

[03/09] Hoopa Valley Tribe v. US
In an action against the United States for breach of fiduciary duty brought by the Hoopa Valley Tribe, arising from the distribution of the remainder in a Settlement Fund established under the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act only to the Yurok Tribe, summary judgment in favor of the government is vacated and remanded where: 1) the Hoopa Valley Tribe lacks standing because it cannot show an injury in fact; but 2) the matter should have been dismissed without prejudice

More...

[03/09] Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.
In an employment discrimination and retaliation action brought by a teacher at a religious school claiming violations of the ADA, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the "ministerial exception" is vacated and remanded as, given the factual findings relating to plaintiff's primary duties as a teacher, the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying her as a ministerial employee.

[03/08] McBeth v. Himes
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of an investigation by the sheriff's office and the Colorado Department of Human Services that resulted in plaintiff surrendering her license to run a daycare facility in Colorado, partial summary judgment based on qualified immunity to defendant-officials is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff voluntarily relinquished her license before any suspension proceedings could take place; and 2) defendants made a prima facie showing that they acted objectively reasonably when they sought suspension of plaintiff's daycare license. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiff failed to allege and prove that the state officials lacked cause to seek suspension of her license.

[03/05] Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.

More...

[03/09] Martinez v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.
In an action under Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), claiming that a mortgage lender charged plaintiffs an illegal underwriting fee, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the clear and unambiguous language of RESPA Section 8(b) did not reach the practice of "overcharging"; and 2) the UCL claims alleging "unfair" and "fraudulent" conduct were preempted by the National Bank Act, and the allegations of "illegal" conduct failed to state a claim.

[03/08] Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. US
In an action by a law firm seeking declaratory relief, arguing that plaintiff was not bound by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act's (BAPCPA) debt relief agency provisions and therefore could freely advise clients to incur additional debt and need not make the requisite disclosures in its advertisements, the Eighth Circuit's order rejecting the district court's conclusion that attorneys are not "debt relief agencies" under BAPCPA, upholding application of BAPCPA's disclosure requirements to attorneys, and finding BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) unconstitutional, is affirmed in part where: 1) attorneys who provided bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons were debt relief agencies under the BAPCPA; and 2) BAPCPA section 528's requirements were reasonably related to the government's interest in preventing consumer deception. However, the court of appeals' order is reversed in part where BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) prohibited a debt relief agency only from advising a debtor to incur more debt because the debtor was filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose.

[03/02] Pfizer v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' action against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law claiming that Pfizer marketed the mouthwash in a misleading manner by representing that the use of it can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis, defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn an order certifying the class action is granted as the ruling certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period is overbroad, and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), does not require a different disposition in this case.

More...

[03/04] New York v. Golden Feather Smoke Shop, Inc.
In defendants' appeal from a preliminary injunction prohibiting the sale of untaxed cigarettes other than to members of the Unkechauge Nation for their personal use, the Second Circuit certifies the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: 1) Does N.Y. Tax Law section 471-e, either by itself or in combination with the provisions of section 471, impose a tax on cigarettes sold on Native American reservations when some or all of those cigarettes may be sold to persons other than members of the reservation's nation or tribe?; 2) If the answer to Question 1 is "no," does N.Y. Tax Law section 471 alone impose a tax on cigarettes sold on Native American reservations when some or all of those cigarettes may be sold to persons other than members of the reservation's nation or tribe?

[03/02] Pfizer v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' action against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law claiming that Pfizer marketed the mouthwash in a misleading manner by representing that the use of it can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis, defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn an order certifying the class action is granted as the ruling certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period is overbroad, and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), does not require a different disposition in this case.

[03/02] Ma v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
In an action against Merrill Lynch based on unauthorized transfers from plaintiff's investment account, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where New York U.C.C. Section 4-A-505, which imposes a one-year statute of repose on certain claims based on electronic funds transfers, bars plaintiffs' common law claims, which had longer limitations periods.

More...

[02/26] Florida Bar v. Bitterman
A referee's report and recommendations pertaining to the misconduct of an attorney while under a rehabilitative suspension, as a result of the her inappropriate behavior in dealing with an unrepresented person and conduct involving dishonesty, are approved but the recommended sanction is disapproved and the attorney is disbarred and taxed with costs.

[02/18] In re: Saghir
The Second Circuit removes an attorney from the bar of the court of appeals, pursuant to the court's reciprocal discipline rule, on the ground that the attorney was previously disbarred by the Southern District of New York.

[02/18] Rodriguez v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C.
In an appeal from the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees after an infant compromise hearing, the award is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in looking beyond the retainer agreement between plaintiffs and their attorneys to the actual work performed by the various attorneys; and 2) the district court did not err in determining that appellant-attorneys did not obtain informed consent from the client for the fee-sharing agreement.

More...

[03/05] Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.

[03/03] City of Laguna Beach v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n
In a city's action against an insurance company seeking reimbursement for incurring workers' compensation liability that exceeded its self-insured retention, grant of insurance company's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the addition of subdivision (c)(13) to Ins. Code section 1063.1 did not abrogate Denny's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 104 Cal.App.4th 1433 (2003); 2) the trial court properly invoked the Denny's rule when it granted summary judgment and concluded that the city cannot obtain reimbursement from defendant under section 1063.1(c)(13) as, although this provision renders the obligation of an insolvent excess workers' compensation insurer a "covered claim" that defendant must ordinarily reimburse, defendant need not reimburse a permissibly self-insured employer for benefits paid to an employee for cumulative injury if the employer's liability is based in part on a period of time when the employer was self-insured and chose not to buy excess insurance for the particular risk.

[02/26] Lara v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision against the petitioner and in favor of the defendant is affirmed as, the petitioner, hired twice in the space of 12 months to prune bushes for a diner, was not an employee of the diner at the time he sustained injury, but rather, he was an independent contractor exempt from workers' compensation coverage.

More...

[03/03] In re: Baycol Prods. Litig.
In a failure-to-warn case involving the prescription drug Baycol, a cholesterol-reducing medication, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) an expert relied upon by plaintiff to prove causation had inadequate factual evidence on which to base his opinion; and 2) plaintiff received what he bargained for and therefore could not demonstrate that defendant was unjustly enriched as a result of plaintiff purchasing Baycol.

[02/24] Niagara Mohawk Power Assn. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
In an action to recover costs pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) allowing plaintiff to proceed under 42 U.S.C. section 107(a) would in effect nullify the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act amendment and abrogate the requirements Congress placed on contribution claims under section 113; and 2) plaintiff did not offer evidence that it incurred costs as to certain disputed areas. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) the 2003 Consent Order between plaintiff and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation qualified as "an administrative or judicially approved settlement" under section 113(f) (3)(B), and thus plaintiff was entitled to seek contribution under CERCLA; and 2) plaintiff introduced evidence that defendant's asphalt facility produced or used hazardous materials that may have been released with the asphalt at issue.

[02/23] Mason v. Smithkine Beecham Corp.
In plaintiffs' lawsuit against the manufacturer of the drug Paxil, an antidepressant, claiming that the company was negligent for not warning that taking the drug increases risk of suicide, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is reversed and remanded as, in light of the extensive showing required by Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. _, 129 S.Ct. 1187 (2009), defendant did not meet its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the FDA would have rejected a label change warning about the risk of suicide by young adults before plaintiffs' daughter's life came to an end at 23.

More...

[12/30] Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
In plaintiff's products liability action against manufacturers and retailers of a power saw that severed his three fingers when his hand came into contact with the saw's unguarded blade, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is vacated and remanded where: 1) district court's denial of motion to remand is affirmed as a procedural defect existing at the time of removal but cured prior to entry of judgment does not warrant reversal and remand of the matter to state court; and 2) district court's exclusion of plaintiff's expert testimony is reversed as the circumstances of the case did not justify such a sanction.

[12/17] Int'l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.
In plaintiff's design patent suit against Walgreens and another defendant involving shoes typically referred to as "clogs", summary judgment in favor of defendants finding that the claims of the asserted patents were invalid as anticipated by a patent assigned to Crocs, Inc. is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded as, although district court correctly held that the ordinary observer test is the sole test of invalidity, it erred, however, in failing to compare the insole patterns in plaintiff's patented designs to the prior art as part of an overall comparison of the designs.

[09/18] In re: Ames Dept. Stores, Inc.
In an appeal from the district court's order affirming a bankruptcy court's order applying section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code to disallow a request for payment of administrative expenses until debtor's predecessor in interest returned a preferential transfer, the order is vacated where section 502(d) does not bar allowance of administrative expenses within the scope of section 503(b).

More...

[12/21] Collins v. Heritage Wine Cellars, Ltd.
In an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act brought by truck drivers against a wholesale importer and distributor of wine claiming that they were not paid overtime, judgment for the defendant is affirmed as the portion of the transportation that is entirely within Illinois is nevertheless interstate commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act and therefore, the Fair Labor Standards Act exempts from its overtime provisions any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 31502 of title 49.

[04/16] General Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown's, LLC
In a dispute involving a change to a dealership agreement, district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed where the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from consolidating its dealerships into a single facility, as the plan would not cause the plaintiff irreparable harm but would cause significant harm to the defendant and the public interest. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to conduct an early trial in order to limit the economic harm.

[03/25] US v. Kaloti Wholesale, Inc.
In a civil forfeiture suit, district court's judgment is affirmed where court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to allow the sale of the seized baby formula, as there was a concern over the safety of the formula and even a very slight danger was reason enough to bar the sale.

More...