Case Summaries

Contracts

[02/08] Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
In a class action lawsuit against multiple insurance companies alleging that defendants violated a contractual promise under insurance policies to pay policyholders the "actual charges" of cancer treatments, judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) under the three-step retroactivity analysis, the presumption against retroactivity operates to bar the application of the South Carolina statute to the claims in this case; and 2) defendants' remaining arguments are meritless.

[12/11] Metro Allied Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Lin
In plaintiff's action against an insurance company for negligence and a violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) for failure to procure a commercial general liability (CGL) policy, the judgment of the court of appeals in favor of the plaintiff is reversed and remanded is the causation standard for a claimed failure to procure insurance under a negligence theory and under the DTPA requires proof of the availability of some insurance that would have covered the plaintiff's damages.

[12/11] D.R. Horton-Texas, Ltd. v. Markel Int'l Ins. Co., Ltd.
In an action brought by a general contractor seeking a defense and coverage from the commercial general liability insurer for alleged construction defects, judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the duty to indemnify is not dependent on the duty to defend and an insurer may have a duty to indemnify its insured even if the duty to defend never arises; and 2) in determining coverage, a matter dependent on the facts and circumstances of the alleged injury-causing event, parties may introduce evidence during coverage litigation to establish or refute the duty to indemnify.

More...

Public Utilities

[01/29] Connecticut Dep't of Pub. Util. Control v. FERC
In a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) order increasing the permissible return on equity for a regional organization of transmission owners, the petition is denied where: 1) nothing in the law or FERC's stated purposes required FERC to adduce evidence that the order would produce new transmission investment; and 2) FERC adduced substantial evidence for the proposition that the incentive was likely to increase the speed with which projects were completed.

[01/26] Pub. Utilities Comm'n v. Sup. Ct.
In a wrongful death action arising out of a fatal accident at a railroad crossing, the California Public Utilities Commission's petition for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court's denial of a motion for summary adjudication is granted and the trial court's order denying the motion is set aside in part as decisional law supports a conclusion that a public entity's ability to regulate property it neither owns nor possesses is not equivalent to a public entity having control of the property within the meaning of Gov. Code section 830.

[01/13] NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. Maine Pub. Utils. Comm.
In a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) approval of a settlement agreement establishing rate-setting mechanisms for the sale of energy capacity, circuit court's partial grant of the petition is reversed where: 1) the Mobile-Sierra presumption does not depend on the identity of the complainant who seeks FERC investigation, and the presumption is not limited to challenges to contract rates brought by contracting parties; and 2) contrary to the ruling below, the Mobile-Sierra presumption applies when a rate challenge is brought by a non-contracting third party.

More...

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[02/05] Omstead v. Dell, Inc.
In a proposed class action alleging that Dell designed, manufactured, and sold defective notebook computers, dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute is reversed where: 1) plaintiffs did not cause any unreasonable delay in the progression of their case; and 2) a choice-of-law provision is unenforceable, and a class action waiver pursuant to which Dell obtained an order compelling arbitration was unconscionable under California law because it satisfied the Discover Bank test, and California had a materially greater interest than Texas in applying its own law.

[02/03] Dotson v. Amgen, Inc.
In plaintiff's action for wrongful termination, trial court's denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration on the ground that the provision concerning witness depositions was flawed is reversed as the language permitting the arbitrator to expand discovery upon a showing of need removes any taint of unconscionability from the agreement, and even if it's assumed to be unconscionable, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to severe it.

[01/29] Lhotka v. Geographic Expeditions, Inc.
Trial court's denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration of a wrongful death action brought by the survivors of one of its clients who died on a Mount Kilimanjaro hiking expedition is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs made a sufficient showing to establish at least a minimal level of oppression to justify a finding of procedural unconscionability; 2) the arbitration clause was so one-sided as to be substantively unconscionable; and 3) it was within the court's discretion to conclude the agreement was so permeated by unconscionability that the interests of justice would not be furthered by severing the damages limitations clause and enforcing the remainder.

More...

Patent

[02/05] SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
In a patent infringement action by a French company that specializes in home-cooking appliances against a Hong Kong corporation, involving a patent which claims a deep fryer with an inexpensive plastic outer shell or skirt, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) there is no manifest of injustice in honoring a jury's finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; 2) there is no prejudice to defendant in the district court's conclusion at the preliminary injunction stage that prosecution history estoppel did not apply; 3) the district court did not err in admitting plaintiff's expert testimony; 4) the jury's finding of inducement is justified, and the damage award, even if it was based on inducement alone, stands; 5) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for JMOL on discovery misconduct grounds; 6) district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a new trial to defendant based on the summation of plaintiff's counsel; and 7) there is no detectable error in district court's decision to set aside its original awards of enhanced damages and attorney's fees.

[02/05] ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.
In a patent infringement action involving a technology relating to screen recognition and terminal emulation processes that download a screen of information from a remote mainframe computer onto a local personal computer, the decision of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment that plaintiff's patent is valid and is infringed by defendant is affirmed; 2) district court's ruling that another of plaintiff's patents is not infringed is affirmed; 3) district court's imposition of sanctions under Rule 11 against plaintiff and its counsel is reversed; and 4) district court's award of damages of $506,305 for past infringement based on a hypothetical royalty of 12.5%, plus prejudgment interest is vacated and remanded for redetermination of damages.

[01/25] Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GMBH v. Barr Lab, Inc.
In a patent infringement suit involving claims for certain tetrahydrobenzthiazole compounds for treatment of signs and symptoms of idiopathic Parkinson's disease, district court's judgment of invalidity is reversed and remanded where: 1) plaintiff's terminal disclaimer cannot overcome obviousness-type double patenting based on the '086 patent because the terminal disclaimer was filed after the expiration of the '086 patent; but 2) the district court incorrectly concluded that the safe-harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. section 121 is inapplicable in this case.

More...

Communications Law

[02/03] Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of N.Y.
In a group of billboard owners' First Amendment challenge to provisions of New York City's Zoning Resolution, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the city was not required to adopt the "least restrictive means" of advancing its asserted interests; 2) the city did not violate the protections afforded commercial speech when it distinguished between plaintiffs' signs or billboards and those located on government property; and 3) the New York Constitution did not provide broader protection for commercial speech than the First Amendment.

[02/01] Peterson v. Grisham
In a defamation action against author John Grisham based on false statements he allegedly made about plaintiffs in a book, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) any connection between defendants' statements and an accusation of criminal activity was far too tenuous for the court to declare them as unprivileged for purposes of Okla. Stat. 1443.1; and 2) because section 1443.1 applied to plaintiffs' libel claims, plaintiffs were also barred under the statute from asserting a valid claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress or false light.

[01/29] Service Employees' Int'l. Union v. Houston
In an action by a union claiming that city ordinances, pursuant to which the city denied the union a permit to conduct a rally in support of a strike, violated the First Amendment, partial summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) the city's noise ordinance made reasonable distinctions among categories in the level of disruption caused by noise that required a permit and noises that came from exempted sources; and 2) the enforcement of Houston's parade ordinance did not turn on whether paraders were protesting as opposed to celebrating. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the city's limit of two permits per location per thirty-day period was not narrowly tailored and was thus unconstitutional; and 2) the Houston Parks Department failed to specify which areas of the City's parks required permits, and this rendered the ordinance at issue void for vagueness.

More...

Oil & Gas

[01/26] PNGTS Shipper's Group v. FERC
In a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's order certifying petitioner-shipper's capacity, the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where, because the shippers could not show an actual or imminent injury as a result of the challenged orders, they were not aggrieved pursuant to section 19(b) of the Natural Gas Act.

[01/22] American Gas Ass'n. v. FERC
In a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's revisions to its financial forms and reporting rules for interstate natural gas pipelines, the petition is granted where a dissenting commissioner raised an alternative possible approach but the Commission failed to address it.

[01/15] US Commodity Futures Trading Comm. v. Dizona
In an action by the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation claiming that defendant-trader attempted to manipulate the market price of natural gas in interstate commerce, judgment as a matter of law for defendant is affirmed where: 1) a summary witness for plaintiff was not a qualified witness who could explain defendant's employer's record keeping system; and 2) a plaintiff expert's general finding of biased reporting at defendant's employer and defendant's incriminating statements on an audiotape were not sufficient to demonstrate that defendant made false entries into the spreadsheets that were sent to the publications.

More...

Securities Law

[02/03] Demings v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co.
In plaintiff's class-action lawsuit, individually and in his official capacity as a sheriff, on behalf of all public employers who sponsor deferred compensation plans, claiming breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment by defendant-insurance company, district court's dismissal of the action is affirmed as the proposed class action does not fit within the narrow state-actions exception to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 because it is not brought on behalf of named plaintiffs who have authorized participation in the action.

[01/28] New York City Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Jobs
In a securities fraud action against Steve Jobs, Apple corporation, and others concerning the issuance of an allegedly false and misleading proxy solicitation for a stock option plan, with allegations based on the backdating of stock options by Apple, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act did not differentiate between plaintiffs seeking legal and equitable remedies, and thus, without an allegation of economic loss, no remedy, equitable or otherwise, was available. However, the district court's denial of plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the complaint is reversed where the district court erred in applying a "waiver" rule to an omitted claim.

[01/12] Lone Star Fund V (US) v. Barclays Bank PLC
In an action claiming that defendant-bank engaged in a fraud relating to mortgage-backed securities that defendant sold to plaintiff, the dismissal of the action is affirmed where the complaint failed to allege a misrepresentation in light of the "repurchase or substitute" clauses in the parties' mortgage-backed securities contracts.

More...

Administrative Law

[02/08] Hall v. Liberty Life Ins. Co. of Boston
In plaintiff's suit seeking reinstatement of her long-term disability benefits, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment with respect to benefit plan's termination of plaintiff's benefits and its claim for partial reimbursement is affirmed; and 2) district court's imposition of an equitable lien on plaintiff's Social Security benefits and its denial of attorney fees to the benefits plan are vacated and remanded.

[02/05] Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera
In plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate seeking to invalidate a new contract between defendant-city and its competitor and to compel city to award the contract through competitive bidding, trial court's grant of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion is reversed and remanded as, even if plaintiff's claims involve a public issue, they are not based on any statement, writing, or conduct by the city in furtherance of its right of free speech or its right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Rather, plaintiff's claims are based on state and municipal laws requiring the city to award certain contracts through competitive bidding, and thus, the claims are not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute.

[02/04] Dillon v. Rogers
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force by prison guards, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where plaintiff never pursued a prison grievance process to the "second step" required under La. Admin. Code tit. 22 section 325(G)(4)(a), but the district court failed to permit the parties to conduct discovery concerning exhaustion and the availability of administrative remedies.

More...

Family Law

[02/08] DG v. DeVaughn
In a class action against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services claiming that the department's agency-wide foster care policies and practices exposed all class members to an impermissible risk of harm, the district court's order certifying a class is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs presented more than conclusory statements that defendants' agency-wide monitoring policies and practices, or lack thereof, created a risk of harm shared by the entire class; 2) due to the common risk of harm and the common underlying legal theory for asserting that risk, the district court acted within its discretion to find that typicality was satisfied; and 3) the injunction sought by plaintiffs applied to the proposed class as a whole without requiring differentiation between class members.

[02/05] In re Koehler
In an attorney's petition for a writ challenging a trial court's order of contempt on attorney arising from divorce proceedings, attorney's petition is treated as one for prohibition and granted, and the order of contempt is reversed and annulled as the requisite procedures were not followed and the applicable law was not applied.

[01/14] Arthur v. Arthur
In a dissolution of marriage action, judgment of the trial court permitting the wife to relocate after twenty months is vacated where, the petition for relocation should have been denied as a best interests determination in petitions for relocation must be made at the time of the final hearing and must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.

More...

Probate Trusts

[01/29] Estate of Artall v. Comm'r. of Int'l. Rev.
In the taxpayer's appeal from the tax court's approval of the IRS Commissioner's disallowance of a "qualified family-owned business interest" estate tax deduction to the taxpayer estate, the tax court's order is affirmed where the "qualified family-owned business interest" deduction of 26 U.S.C. section 2057 is available for an estate's qualifying equity or ownership interests but not for debt interests such as loans receivable.

[01/22] Charles Schwab & Co. v. Debickero
In an interpleader action by a bank seeking to determine the ownership of an IRA account held by decedent, summary judgment for the named beneficiaries of the IRA is affirmed where: 1) the surviving spouse protections in ERISA did not apply to the IRA even though some of the funds originated from an ERISA-protected pension plan, and 2) the Internal Revenue Code also did not impose automatic surviving spouse rights on IRAs similar to those protections afforded under ERISA.

[01/08] Suleman v. Sup. Ct.
A petition for a writ of mandate by plaintiff, commonly referred to in the media as the "Octomom", challenging the probate court's denial of her motion to dismiss a petition by an individual, a president of a nonprofit corporation, and the court's appointment of the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) to conduct an investigation of the family's finances is granted where: 1) the probate court erred by denying plaintiff's motion to dismiss the petition; 2) the individual seeking guardianship has no standing under Probate Code section 1510(a) as the petition seeking appointment of a guardian of the octopulets' estates should have been dismissed because he has neither pleaded ultimate facts demonstrating the plaintiff has engaged in any financial misconduct, nor alleged any other information warranting court investigation in the plaintiff's family's finances; and 3) the probate court's order for an investigation of the family's finances is vacated.

More...

Immigration Law

[02/04] Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's order dismissing petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and denying his applications for relief under former Immigration and Nationality Act section 212(c) and the Convention Against Torture, the petition is granted in part where the failure of the Immigration Judge and BIA to consider evidence of country conditions constituted reversible error. However, the petition is denied in part where the Attorney General did not have authority to waive the grounds for petitioner's removal.

[02/04] Estrada v. State of Rhode Island
In plaintiffs' action challenging the constitutionality of the actions of a police officer during a traffic stop, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) the officer is entitled to federal and state qualified immunity for any possible constitutional violations that he may have committed in asking the van's passengers questions about their immigration status and in contacting ICE; 2) the officer is entitled to qualified immunity for alleged violations of state or federal laws surrounding the seizure of plaintiffs and their subsequent escort to ICE office; 3) officer is entitled to qualified immunity for both pat down searches under federal and state law; and 4) the officer is entitled to qualified immunity for all of the challenged actions with respect to the Rhode Island Racial Profiling Prevention Act.

[02/04] Gildernew v. Quarantillo
In an action seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiff, an Irish national, was entitled to naturalize in the U.S., summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the one-year absence bar in 8 U.S.C. section 1427(b) applied both to the period preceding the naturalization interview and the period following the interview; and 2) plaintiff was neither exempt from the continuous residence requirement, nor did he present a set of facts that would warrant an estoppel.

More...

Copyright

[01/29] Latin American Music Co. v. American Soc'y of Composers Authors & Publishers
In parties' dispute over the rights to a song, jury verdict in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in instructing the jury with respect to a 1982 contract; 2) district court did not err in refusing to give a missing witness instruction; and 3) plaintiff's remaining claims are rejected.

[01/27] Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art Found., Inc. v. Buchel
In a dispute between an artist and a museum over the implementation and installation of a football-field sized artwork, judgment of the district court in favor of the museum is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) applies to unfinished works, and as such, genuine issues of material fact forecloses summary judgment on one of the artist's VARA claims - that the museum violated his right of artistic integrity by modifying the installation; and 2) the artist asserted a viable claim under the Copyright Act that the museum violated his exclusive right to display his work publicly.

[12/01] Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC
In plaintiff's suit against defendant for infringement of jewelry designs, trademarks and copyrights, trial court's decision denying plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute is affirmed as the filing of a lawsuit in a foreign country is not protected activity under the United States or California Constitutions as to implicate the statute.

More...