FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Class Actions

[06/25] Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins., Co. v. Bezich
A petition for permission to appeal, arising from the district court's remand of plaintiff's class action lawsuit against an insurer for breach of contract claims on the basis that CAFA's exception to federal jurisdiction for the action applied, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiff's claim "related to the rights, duties,...and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to...a security," as defined in the Securities Act of 1933.

[06/24] Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assoc. Inc.
In a suit brought by about 4000 current and former employees against an employer, claiming that the company, which provides security guard services throughout Southern California, denied meal and rest breaks and failed to pay for overtime, trial court's denial of their motion for class certification is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) order denying the motion for class certification as to the meal break class and the rest break class is affirmed as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding common issues of law and fact did not predominate over individual issues; and 2) order denying the motion for class certification as to the overtime-pay class is reversed and remanded.

[06/24] Brown v. Kelly
In a class action by persons allegedly arrested pursuant to an unconstitutional New York anti-begging statute, the district court's class certification order is affirmed in part where the citywide plaintiff class met the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). However, the order is reversed in part where the district court erred in certifying a statewide defendant class because the defendant class representatives did not meet the adequacy and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), and the district court also erred in certifying a statewide plaintiff class because the certification of this class was contingent on the bilateral certification of both a statewide plaintiff and a statewide defendant class.

[06/22] Anderson v. Bayer Corp.
In a suit for personal injuries caused by Trasylol, a prescription medication manufactured by Bayer, defendants' petition for leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C. section 1453(c) of a district court's order remanding four of the five cases is denied for lack of jurisdiction as the district court properly concluded that the four cases were not "mass" actions under CAFA.

[06/17] Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC
In a suit brought by fishermen against a defendant for negligently spilling pollutants and hazardous contaminants into a pond, the judgment of the Second District is quashed as commercial fishermen have both a statutory and common law cause of action for economic losses proximately caused by the negligent release of pollutants despite the fact that the fishermen do not own any property damages by the pollution.

Read More

Consumer Protection

[06/24] Olmstead v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
An order to partially satisfy a judgment against defendant in the FTC's suit for unfair or deceptive trade practices is affirmed as Florida law permits a court to order a judgment debtor to surrender all right, title, and interest in the debtor's single-member limited liability company to satisfy an outstanding judgment.

[06/21] Edwards v. First Am. Corp.
In an action claiming that defendant improperly paid millions of dollars to individual title companies and, in exchange, those title companies entered into exclusive referral agreements with defendant, a denial of defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is affirmed where the text of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act did not limit liability to instances in which a plaintiff was overcharged.

[06/21] Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp.
In plaintiff's class action suit under section 17529.5(a)(2), which makes it unlawful to advertise in a commercial e-mail advertisement (i.e. spam) that "contains or is accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information," dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim is affirmed as sending commercial e-mail advertisements from multiple domain names for the purpose of bypassing spam filters is not unlawful under section 17529.5(a)(2).

[06/21] Real Estate Bar Ass'n for Massachusetts, Inc. v. Nat'l Real Estate Info. Serv.
In the Real Estate Bar Association's suit against defendant for unauthorized practice of law, judgment of the district court is vacated in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment against plaintiff on its unauthorized practice of law claim is vacated as in Massachusetts, the state judicial branch and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (SJC) in particular, is solely responsible for defining what is the practice of law, and here, there is no controlling precedent which addresses whether the activities at issue constitute unauthorized practice of law; and 2) district court's judgment on defendant's dormant Commerce Clause counterclaim is reversed as plaintiff is not a state actor, defendant has not stated a dormant Commerce Clause claim against plaintiff, and plaintiff's bringing of its suit against defendant under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 221, section 46B is protected by the First Amendment.

[06/17] Ehrheart v. Verizon Wireless
In a class action against Verizon Wireless claiming that defendant violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, which prohibits a seller from printing a receipt that displays more than the last five digits of a buyer's credit or debit card and/or the expiration date of the credit or debit card, a district court's order vacating its settlement class certification order and granting defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is reversed where: 1) there was a restricted, tightly focused role that Rule 23 prescribes for district courts, requiring them to act as fiduciaries for the absent class members, but that did not vest them with broad powers to intrude upon the parties' bargain; 2) a strong public policy existed, which was particularly muscular in class action suits, favoring settlement of disputes, finality of judgments and the termination of litigation; and 3) changes in the law after a settlement was reached did not provide ground for rescission of the settlement.

Read More

Ethics & Disciplinary

[06/24] Florida Bar v. Ratiner
In Florida Bar's complaint against an attorney in connection to his alleged misconduct during the deposition of a representative of DuPont, referee's findings of fact and recommendations as to guilt are affirmed, as well as the mitigating factors and the aggravating factors found by the referee, but the referee's alternative recommendations of disbarment or a two-year suspension with respect to discipline are disapproved, and instead a public reprimand and a suspension of sixty days followed by two years' probation is imposed.

[06/21] Real Estate Bar Ass'n for Massachusetts, Inc. v. Nat'l Real Estate Info. Serv.
In the Real Estate Bar Association's suit against defendant for unauthorized practice of law, judgment of the district court is vacated in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment against plaintiff on its unauthorized practice of law claim is vacated as in Massachusetts, the state judicial branch and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (SJC) in particular, is solely responsible for defining what is the practice of law, and here, there is no controlling precedent which addresses whether the activities at issue constitute unauthorized practice of law; and 2) district court's judgment on defendant's dormant Commerce Clause counterclaim is reversed as plaintiff is not a state actor, defendant has not stated a dormant Commerce Clause claim against plaintiff, and plaintiff's bringing of its suit against defendant under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 221, section 46B is protected by the First Amendment.

[06/17] Harrell v. Fla. Bar
In a First Amendment action by a lawyer who advertised the services of his firm extensively, claiming in a broad facial challenge that nine advertising-related provisions of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar were so vague as to violate his due process rights, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff did not give any substantial reason to believe that submitting a bare script or outline of the advertisements he proposed would constitute a hardship. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement with respect to five of the challenged rules; 2) plaintiff made an adequate threshold showing of vagueness in the application of the rules to his proposed advertisements; and 3) the bar did not bear its heavy burden of showing that it is "absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur."

[06/10] Florida Bar v. Hines
In the Florida Bar's complaint against an attorney, arising from events in the course of acting as attorney and closing agent in a real estate transaction, the matter is remanded to the referee for a recommendation as to the appropriate discipline as the attorney violated Florida Bar 4-5.3(b) by allowing a nonlawyer, whom she neither employed, supervised, nor controlled, to have signatory authority over an escrow account she opened to handle real estate closings, resulting in misappropriation by that nonlawyer of funds held in trust in the escrow account.

[06/10] Florida Bar v. Scott
In Florida Bar's complaint against an attorney, arising from the attorney's representation of a client-firm against the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a referee's report recommending the attorney be guilty of professional misconduct and suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) the referee's findings more than amply support the recommendations of guilt as to the conflict-of-interest claims as well as to claims of misrepresentation; and 2) referee's sanction recommendation is vacated and instead a three-year suspension is imposed.

Read More

Ethics & Professional Responsibility

[06/25] Lal v. State of Cal.
In an action against the California Highway Patrol and certain officers for the shooting death of plaintiff's husband, dismissal of the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute when her attorney failed to meet deadlines and attend hearings is reversed where an attorney's gross negligence constituted an extraordinary circumstance warranting relief from a judgment dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).

[06/24] Florida Bar v. Ratiner
In Florida Bar's complaint against an attorney in connection to his alleged misconduct during the deposition of a representative of DuPont, referee's findings of fact and recommendations as to guilt are affirmed, as well as the mitigating factors and the aggravating factors found by the referee, but the referee's alternative recommendations of disbarment or a two-year suspension with respect to discipline are disapproved, and instead a public reprimand and a suspension of sixty days followed by two years' probation is imposed.

[06/22] Jay E. Hayden Found. v. First Neighbor Bank, NA
In a RICO suit against a bank, two law firms, and affiliated individuals, grant of defendants' motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint itself showed that plaintiffs had missed the four-year deadline governing RICO suits is affirmed as, by the summer of 2003 at the latest, the plaintiffs knew that a lawyer had looted the estate and that bank's employees were trying to prevent further investigation of the lawyer.

[06/21] Real Estate Bar Ass'n for Massachusetts, Inc. v. Nat'l Real Estate Info. Serv.
In the Real Estate Bar Association's suit against defendant for unauthorized practice of law, judgment of the district court is vacated in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment against plaintiff on its unauthorized practice of law claim is vacated as in Massachusetts, the state judicial branch and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (SJC) in particular, is solely responsible for defining what is the practice of law, and here, there is no controlling precedent which addresses whether the activities at issue constitute unauthorized practice of law; and 2) district court's judgment on defendant's dormant Commerce Clause counterclaim is reversed as plaintiff is not a state actor, defendant has not stated a dormant Commerce Clause claim against plaintiff, and plaintiff's bringing of its suit against defendant under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 221, section 46B is protected by the First Amendment.

[06/18] US v. 777 Greene Ave.
In a civil forfeiture proceeding, the motion to withdraw of defendant's counsel is denied where such a motion will not be granted unless counsel satisfies the requirements established under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1976), and its progeny. With regard to motions to withdraw filed by appellate counsel appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 983(b)(2)(A), the procedure established under Anders and its progeny is best suited to protect the right to counsel to which indigent litigants are entitled.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[06/25] Crescent Towing & Salvage Co. v. Chios Beauty MV
In an action for damages sustained when defendant's ship collided with plaintiffs' barges and tugboats during Hurricane Katrina, partial judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where the district court did not clearly err in its finding of a predicted "direct hit" on New Orleans by the hurricane, its factual findings based on this finding, and the ultimate finding of negligence to the extent that it relied upon this finding. However, the matter is remanded where the district court needed to enter an order setting the total amount of recovery plaintiffs could recover in rem.

[06/25] Bagby Elevator Co. v. Schindler Elevator Corp.
In an action for tortious interference with contract, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) under the court's highly deferential standard of review, there was no reversible error in the district court's decision to use the pattern jury instruction; 2) there was sufficient evidence of both malice and gross negligence to support an award of exemplary damages; and 3) there was ample evidence of causation to support the verdict.

[06/25] Lal v. State of Cal.
In an action against the California Highway Patrol and certain officers for the shooting death of plaintiff's husband, dismissal of the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute when her attorney failed to meet deadlines and attend hearings is reversed where an attorney's gross negligence constituted an extraordinary circumstance warranting relief from a judgment dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).

[06/24] DDJ Mgmt., LLC v. Rhone Group L.L.C.
In an action claiming that defendants presented plaintiffs with corporate financial statements that were false and misleading, the appellate division's modification of the trial court's order dismissing plaintiffs' fraud claim is reversed where: 1) when a plaintiff has taken reasonable steps to protect itself against deception, it should not be denied recovery merely because hindsight suggested that it might have been possible to detect the fraud when it occurred; and 2) plaintiffs in this action for fraud have alleged facts from which a jury could find that they were justified in relying on the representations defendants made to them.

[06/18] Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Merrell
In plaintiffs' wrongful death and survival claims against Wal-Mart for the death of their son from smoke inhalation, claiming that a halogen lamp purchased from Wal-Mart caused the fire, the court of appeals' reversal of the trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs produced evidence on each challenged element of their cause of action is reversed as, plaintiff's expert's testimony was legally insufficient to support causation.

Read More

Legal Malpractice

[06/21] Med. Assurance Co., Inc. v. Hellman
District court's order issuing a stay of federal proceedings in an insurer's request for declaratory judgment, claiming that it no longer has a duty to defend or indemnify a doctor due to his disappearance in more than 350 medical malpractice claims, is reversed and remanded as it was an abuse of discretion to stay this action.

[06/17] Price v. Wolford
In the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA)'s appeal from the district court's order allotting part of a malpractice settlement to OHCA in full satisfaction of the lien, the order is reversed where the district court correctly construed Oklahoma law but erred in finding that the settling parties had proved by clear and convincing evidence that only $67,666.67 of the settlement could be attributed to medical care paid by Medicaid.

[06/17] Estate of Schneider v. Finmann
In a legal malpractice action alleging that defendants negligently advised decedent to transfer, or failed to advise decedent not to transfer, an insurance policy which resulted in an increased estate tax liability, the appellate division's affirmance of dismissal of the action is reversed where an attorney may be held liable for damages resulting from negligent representation in estate tax planning that causes enhanced estate tax liability.

[06/17] Martinez v. Cui
In plaintiff's suit against a first-year medical resident claiming that she was sexually assaulted during an examination, judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court's evidentiary rulings were not error; and 2) the jury was correctly instructed on the shocks-the-conscious element as this standard applies to claims that an executive official's sexual assault violated the substantive due process clause.

[06/09] Anaya-Burgos v. Lasalvia-Prisco
In plaintiff's suit against an oncologist and others, claiming that the death of his wife was the result of defendants' negligent acts and omissions that induced her to purchase their "cancer vaccine" treatment and forego conventional cancer treatments, a grant of defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is vacated and remanded as, plaintiff put forth sufficient evidence including expert testimony, from which a reasonable jury could have concluded - and did conclude - that defendants' breach of the standard of care towards the wife caused her untimely death by inducing her to choose their treatment with promises that it would cure her.

Read More

Oil & Gas

[06/25] Rathborne Land Co. v. Ascent Engy., Inc.
In an action for breach of defendant's obligations to reasonably develop and explore a leased parcel of oil, gas, and mineral land, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff's letter to defendant met the La. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 31:136 demand requirement; and 2) district court did not clearly err in concluding that plaintiff would have been able to lease the disputed acreage more than once if it had been able to seismically survey the parcel prior to 2006. However, the judgment is vacated in part where neither the district court nor plaintiff could show an adequate ground -- indeed, any relevant precedent -- for awarding consequential damages for lost leasing and seismic revenues on the entire parcel.

[06/25] Hershey v. Engy. Transfer Ptnrs., L.P.
In a putative class action under the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA), alleging manipulation of natural gas futures and options prices, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiffs did not allege facts tending to show that defendants had specifically intended to manipulate the cost of natural gas.

[06/18] Biodiversity Conservation Alliance v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.
In several environmental and citizens' groups challenge to a 2003 Bureau of Land Management resource management plan amendment allowing natural gas development in Wyoming's Powder River Basin, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the Bureau reasonably concluded that phased development was impractical and would not meet the project's purposes, and this ground was an adequate basis for the Bureau's decision

[06/16] Bailey v. Shell W. E&P Inc.
In an action by Shell seeking a declaration regarding the proper calculation method for royalties on carbon dioxide in the McElmo Dome area, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) dismissal only applies to the dismissal of an entire action, not particular claims; 2) because the parties only disputed Shell's obligations under a contract related to real property, the local action rule did not control; and 3) plaintiff did not carry his burden to prove that the allegations in his False Claims Act claims were not based upon prior, public disclosures -- or, if they were, that he was an original source of the information.

[06/16] Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. City of Alexandria
In an action for a declaratory judgment against a city, arising from an ordinance to regulate ethanol transloading at plaintiff's facility, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and vacated where: 1) the ordinance, as applied to plaintiff through the permit, is preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA); 2) district court's judgment with respect to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) and Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) is vacated; and 3) because the disposition of the ICCTA claim renders other preemption claims moot, the HMTA claim is dismissed.

Read More

Professional Malpractice

[06/21] Med. Assurance Co., Inc. v. Hellman
District court's order issuing a stay of federal proceedings in an insurer's request for declaratory judgment, claiming that it no longer has a duty to defend or indemnify a doctor due to his disappearance in more than 350 medical malpractice claims, is reversed and remanded as it was an abuse of discretion to stay this action.

[06/17] Price v. Wolford
In the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA)'s appeal from the district court's order allotting part of a malpractice settlement to OHCA in full satisfaction of the lien, the order is reversed where the district court correctly construed Oklahoma law but erred in finding that the settling parties had proved by clear and convincing evidence that only $67,666.67 of the settlement could be attributed to medical care paid by Medicaid.

[06/17] Estate of Schneider v. Finmann
In a legal malpractice action alleging that defendants negligently advised decedent to transfer, or failed to advise decedent not to transfer, an insurance policy which resulted in an increased estate tax liability, the appellate division's affirmance of dismissal of the action is reversed where an attorney may be held liable for damages resulting from negligent representation in estate tax planning that causes enhanced estate tax liability.

[06/17] Martinez v. Cui
In plaintiff's suit against a first-year medical resident claiming that she was sexually assaulted during an examination, judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court's evidentiary rulings were not error; and 2) the jury was correctly instructed on the shocks-the-conscious element as this standard applies to claims that an executive official's sexual assault violated the substantive due process clause.

[06/09] Anaya-Burgos v. Lasalvia-Prisco
In plaintiff's suit against an oncologist and others, claiming that the death of his wife was the result of defendants' negligent acts and omissions that induced her to purchase their "cancer vaccine" treatment and forego conventional cancer treatments, a grant of defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is vacated and remanded as, plaintiff put forth sufficient evidence including expert testimony, from which a reasonable jury could have concluded - and did conclude - that defendants' breach of the standard of care towards the wife caused her untimely death by inducing her to choose their treatment with promises that it would cure her.

Read More

Transportation

[06/25] Crescent Towing & Salvage Co. v. Chios Beauty MV
In an action for damages sustained when defendant's ship collided with plaintiffs' barges and tugboats during Hurricane Katrina, partial judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where the district court did not clearly err in its finding of a predicted "direct hit" on New Orleans by the hurricane, its factual findings based on this finding, and the ultimate finding of negligence to the extent that it relied upon this finding. However, the matter is remanded where the district court needed to enter an order setting the total amount of recovery plaintiffs could recover in rem.

[06/23] Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. US Airways Group
In an airline pilots union's suit to establish and arbitrate before a multi-employer, multi-union board of adjustment, district court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed as plaintiff's claim is foreclosed by the plain language of section 204 of the Railway Labor Act, which permits but does not require such a board adjustment, and plaintiff's alternative state law claim is meritless.

[06/22] RLI Ins. Co. v. All Star Transp., Inc.
In an interpleader action by an insurance company to determine its obligations to pay truckers hired by its bankrupt insured under a surety bond, summary judgment for plaintiff-insurer is affirmed where Form BMC 84, which governed such bonds, plainly stated that the face value of the bond was the sum of $10,000 for all claims combined.

[06/21] Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp.
In an action based on the alleged destruction of goods being shipped, the Ninth Circuit's reversal of the district court's dismissal of the action based on the fact that the parties' contract designated a Tokyo court as the venue for any dispute is reversed where, because the Carmack Amendment does not apply to a shipment originating overseas under a single through bill of lading, the parties' agreement to litigate these cases in Tokyo is binding.

[06/18] AEP Tex. N. Co. v. Surface Transp. Bd.
In an electric utility's petition for review of the Surface Transportation Board's denial of a portion of petitioner's petition requesting a recomputation of petitioner's cost of equity capital for the years 1998-2005, the petition is granted in part where the Board's particularly cursory analysis of the 2005 cost of equity estimates constituted arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking. However, the petition is denied in part where the fact that the Board did not agree that the changed circumstances warranted changing prior years' calculations did not by itself mean the Board acted arbitrarily or capriciously or failed to consider seriously petitioner's evidence.

Read More