Legal News

Case Summaries

Admiralty

[08/06] Southwest Marine, Inc. v. US
Fees incurred by plaintiff-shipyard operator during its unsuccessful defense of a private party Clean Water Act lawsuit are not allowable costs under Subpart 31.2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. sections 31.201-31.205.

[08/04] Aguilera v. Alaska Juris F/V
In the context of general maritime law and injured seamen, the circuit court rules that maintenance and cure payments are subject to withholding for child support obligations, so long as those payments constitute income under relevant state law.

[07/25] Bd. of Comm'rs of the Orleans Levee Dist. v. M/V Belle of Orleans
In an admiralty action seeking to enforce a maritime lien raising contract and tort claims involving a paddlewheeler vessel that broke loose from its moorings during Hurricane Katrina, dismissal for lack of admiralty jurisdiction and denial of defendant's Rule 59(e) motion to alter, amend, or vacate are affirmed and reversed in part where: 1) the paddlewheeler was a "vessel" for purposes of establishing admiralty jurisdiction; 2) the district court improperly determined that it lacked admiralty jurisdiction over a tort claim; 3) the district court improperly refused to issue a writ of attachment under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules; and 4) a contract claim was properly dismissed for lack of admiralty jurisdiction because the lease at issue, while partially maritime in nature, was not a maritime contract for purposes of creating a maritime lien.

[07/23] Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. US Envtl. Prot. Agency
In an action challenging a regulation originally promulgated by the EPA in 1973 exempting certain marine discharges from the permitting scheme of sections 301(a) and 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a decision vacating the regulation is affirmed where: 1) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the suit; 2) the EPA acted ultra vires in promulgating the regulation and its denial of plaintiffs' 1999 petition requesting a repeal of the regulation was not in accordance with law; and 3) the remedial order was a proper exercise of the district court's discretion.

More...

Class Actions

[08/20] Rosenau v. Unifund Corp.
In a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) alleging that defendant sent deceptive debt-collection letters, judgment for defendant on the pleadings is reversed and remanded where the "least sophisticated debtor" reading defendant's letter might reasonably interpret it as being from an attorney when in fact it was not.

[08/20] Buckley v. Mukasey
In an action under Title VII claiming race discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation stemming from plaintiff's employment as a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration, judgment as a matter of law for the government is vacated and remanded where: 1) district court's ruling on certain class action litigation evidence constituted an error of law and thus, an abuse of discretion; 2) the court erred in granting the government's Rule 50 motion on a failure-to-promote retaliation claim; and 3) plaintiff was entitled to a new trial on the claims that were, and which should have been, submitted to the jury in a 2006 trial.

[08/19] Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. USIS Commercial Servs., Inc.
In truck drivers' action alleging defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in its procurement and dissemination of plaintiffs' employment histories, judgment for defendant is affirmed over challenges to: 1) a ruling finding that disputed reports are not "consumer reports" procured for employment purposes; 2) an evidentiary ruling admitting evidence regarding employer trucking companies' use of the reports they obtained from defendant; and 3) a denial of class certification.

[08/19] In Re: Nortel Networks Corp. Securities Litig.
In a matter involving attorneys' fees following settlement of a private securities class action, judgment awarding 3% of the class's recovery to class counsel rather than the requested 8.5% is affirmed where: 1) appellant has waived its argument that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act altered the fee-award scheme for cases covered by the Act by failing to present this argument to the district court; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a reasonable fee under established precedent.

More...

Commercial Law

[08/20] Boschetto v. Hansing
The sale of one automobile via the eBay website, without more, does not provide sufficient "minimum contacts" to establish jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in the forum state.

[08/20] Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI
In a case involving, inter alia, whether right of first refusal agreements between a publisher of advertising tools and packaged goods companies violate California antitrust and tort law, judgment in the matter is affirmed primarily as the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

[08/19] Pelton-Shephard Indus. v. Delta Pkg. Products, Inc.
In an action to recover damages owed by defendant-distributor related to terminated distribution agreement, default judgment for plaintiff company is reversed where: 1) the trial court failed in its responsibilities under the Civil Discovery Act; 2) the trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion to compel after the discovery motion cutoff date when plaintiff had not moved to reopen discovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050; and 3) the trial court prejudicially abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion for relief from the waiver of objection because defendant's failure to timely respond to the inspection demands was the result of its attorney's excusable neglect.

[08/19] DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc.
In a suit alleging infringement of two patents for storing and displaying footwear for customer self-service, summary judgment of non-infringement of one patent and no liability for damages for past infringement of both patents is vacated and remanded where: 1) the finding of non-infringement was based on incorrect construction of claims; and 2) patent infringement is a strict liability offense, and an infringer's reasonable steps and good faith efforts to cease infringing activity are insufficient to avoid damages.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[08/20] Boschetto v. Hansing
The sale of one automobile via the eBay website, without more, does not provide sufficient "minimum contacts" to establish jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in the forum state.

[08/20] Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI
In a case involving, inter alia, whether right of first refusal agreements between a publisher of advertising tools and packaged goods companies violate California antitrust and tort law, judgment in the matter is affirmed primarily as the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

[08/20] Piscitelli v. Salesian Society
In a negligence action against defendant-Salesian Society for failing to protect plaintiff from childhood sexual abuse at the hands of one of defendant's priests, judgment against defendant is affirmed where, if it is relevant to the issue, a witness may be impeached by evidence of a prior conviction in order to show bias, without regard to the nature of the underlying crime as it relates to the character traits of honesty and truthfulness.

[08/20] Soto-Lebron v. Federal Express Corp.
In a matter brought by former employee against defendant FedEx following his termination, grant of FedEx's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the slander and libel claims is affirmed where: 1) the evidence introduced in support of the slander claim "does not rise to more than informal rumors" circulating among employees, for which FedEx cannot be held liable; and 2) there was sufficient evidence to support liability for libel. Case is remanded for new trial on damages for the libel claim where admission of irrelevant evidence tainted the jury's damage calculation and that taint was not cured by remittitur. Denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is reversed where former employee-plaintiff did not introduce any evidence suggesting that a subsequent employer or potential employer treated him adversely as a result of the defamatory statements made by FedEx.

More...