News

Case Summaries

Civil Rights

[05/17] Ridley School District v. M.R.
In a suit by parents of a learning-disabled child, seeking compensatory education from a school district for violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and tuition reimbursement, including transportation expenses, for the child's enrollment in an alternative school, the district court's judgment in favor of the school district is affirmed, where: 1) the school district complied with its "child find" obligations under the IDEA, and the child was not denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE); 2) the child's individualized education program was adequate to provide a FAPE; and 3) there was no section 504 violation, as the school district took reasonable steps to accommodate the child's disabilities and include her in all class activities.

[05/17] JSJ Limited Partnership v. Mehrban
In a suit by a restaurant for abuse of process and malicious prosecution against a patron who had sued it for ADA violations, the trial court's denial of an anti-SLAPP motion to strike is reversed, where: 1) the ADA complaint arose from protected activity and was a proper subject of a motion made pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute; and 2) the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of demonstrating a likelihood it would prevail on the merits of its claims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution, since a) the litigation privilege foreclosed the pursuit of the abuse of process cause of action, and b) the restaurant's successful invocation of the defense of res judicata in the underlying ADA claim, which resulted in a voluntary dismissal, was not a favorable determination on the merits necessary for a malicious prosecution action.

[05/16] Johnson v. Killian
In a suit asserting Bivens claims for violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) against prison officials for a policy that restricted Muslim inmates' ability to perform regular congregational prayers, summary judgment in favor of the defendants is vacated, where an earlier grievance filed by the plaintiff was sufficient to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to continuing limitations on congregational prayer at the prison.

[05/16] Fitzsimons v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group
In a suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) brought by a physician against a medical group of which she was a partner, alleging unlawful retaliation for opposing sexual harassment of an employee, the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant is reversed, where: 1) the harassment of the defendant's employees, if proven, was an unlawful practice for which the defendant would be liable; 2) FEHA made it an unlawful practice for the defendant to retaliate against any "person" for opposing that harassment; and 3) "person" includes a partner.

Read More

Cyberspace

Read More

Entertainment

Read More

Environmental Law

[05/18] Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. US
In an action seeking damages to compensate for the cost of storing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste beyond the time that the government promised by contract to begin storing that waste in a permanent and secure repository, the Federal Circuit: 1) affirms a) the trial court's factual determination and award of damages based on an exchanges model, b) the trial court's determination regarding the deferred costs for loading waste to DOE, and c) the trial court's finding that the government could not assert that Greater Than Class C radioactive waste must be included in the SNF acceptance queue calculations; and 2) reverses the trial court's denial of wet storage pool costs and NRC fees.

[05/10] City of Malibu v. California Coastal Commission
In a case in which the California Coastal Commission rejected a city's local coastal program (LCP) amendment and certified an overlay district proposed by state agencies as an LCP amendment, the trial court's grant of petitions for writ of mandate seeking declaratory and injunctive relief is affirmed, as the Coastal Commission exceeded its jurisdiction, where the amendments were not requested to undertake a public works project or energy facility development, but instead changed the city's land use policies and development standards as they would apply to future plans for development within the city.

[05/03] North Carolina Wildlife Federation v. North Carolina Dep't of Transportation
In a suit by conservation groups against state and federal transportation agencies, arguing that the process by which the agencies approved a toll road violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the district court's grant of summary judgment to the agencies is vacated and the case remanded, where the agencies violated NEPA by failing to disclose critical assumptions underlying their decision to build the road and instead provided the public with incorrect information.

[04/26] Jamulians Against the Casino v. Iwasaki
In a case contesting CalTrans' execution of a settlement agreement with an Indian tribe that resolved federal litigation between those parties over application of CEQA to the tribe's efforts to upgrade its interchange on State Route 94 to allow for access to a proposed casino, the trial court's sustaining of a demurrer by Caltrans is reversed, where the trial court took judicial notice of a document's contents in ruling on the demurrer.

Read More

Health Law

[05/16] In re Schering Plough Corp.
In consolidated putative class actions brought by third-party payors of drugs prescribed for off-label purposes and by individual patients against a drug company that conducted alleged illegal and false sales and marketing campaigns, the district court's dismissal of both actions for lack of standing is affirmed, where: 1) the third-party payor plaintiff did not establish that its alleged injury was fairly traceable to the defendant's alleged wrongful conduct; and 2) the individual plaintiff failed to adequately allege causation.

[05/15] Harman Mining Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, DOL
In a case in which an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that a man suffered disabling obstructive lung disease arising out of his work as a coal miner and awarded his widow black lung benefits payable by his former employer, a petition for review is denied, where the award of benefits found support in the record and accorded with the Administrative Procedure Act, as the ALJ properly evaluated the appropriate weight to accord conflicting medical opinions.

[05/15] People v. Kendrid
An order extending the defendant's commitment pursuant to Penal Code section 1026.5(b) is affirmed, where: 1) the medical director's recommendation against extending the defendant's commitment did not preclude the district attorney from filing the petition; and 2) substantial evidence supported the court's order extending the defendant's commitment.

[05/15] Morris v. Shinseki
In a case in which a veteran made a claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder, a denial by the Board of Veterans' Appeals is affirmed, where: 1) under 38 CFR section 3.303(c) the disorder was not a compensable injury or disease; and 2) the Board did not commit clear and unmistakable error when it denied the claim for service connection without applying the presumption of 38 USC section 1111 that the claimant was sound before entering service.

Read More

Immigration Law

[05/16] People v. Shokur
In a criminal case in which an Afghani national who was in removal proceedings filed a "nonstatutory" motion to raise a postjudgment claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on the basis of counsel's failure to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, the superior court's denial of the motion is affirmed, where: 1) the court was without jurisdiction to hear the motion, as case law did not require a nonstatutory motion safety net to provide a remedy when other remedies through which relief might have been obtained were no longer available; and 2) in any event, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that he would have been entitled to relief as a result of prior counsel's conduct.

[05/10] Da Silva Neto v. Holder
In removal proceedings against a Brazilian national who admitted to sufficient facts to support a finding of malicious destruction of property under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, section 127, a petition for review of the BIA's denial of cancellation of removal is denied, where the BIA's conclusion that the petitioner committed a crime involving moral turpitude, and thus could not qualify as a person of good moral character, was neither arbitrary nor contrary to law.

[05/02] Cheung v. Holder
In a case in which a native and citizen of Hong Kong was denied cancellation of removal on the ground that he lacked ten years' continuous physical presence in the United States, a petition for review is denied, where a notice to appear (NTA) was effective to stop accrual of time, despite the fact that the charge alleged, fraud, was subsequently withdrawn and a new charge, overstaying, was added with the filing of Form I-261 approximately six months later, since the NTA itself was never withdrawn.

[05/01] Akinsade v. Holder
In removal proceedings against a lawful permanent resident who had been convicted of embezzlement by a bank employee under 18 USC section 656, a petition for review of a BIA finding of removability is granted, where none of the facts to which the petitioner actually and necessarily pleaded to establish the elements of his embezzlement offense revealed whether that offense was committed with a specific intent to defraud, so it was error for the BIA to infer that the conviction was for an offense involving fraud or deceit and thus an aggravated felony subjecting the petitioner to removal.

Read More

Insurance Law

[05/18] Oxford Aviation, Inc. v. Global Aerospace, Inc.
In an action brought by an insured seeking a declaratory judgment that its insurer was required to defend it in a suit for alleged faulty repair work performed for a client, the decision of the district court is vacated so far as it rejected a duty to defend, where: 1) some damage allegedly caused by the insured was within the coverage provision of the policy; and 2) none of the five exclusions in the policy negated the duty to defend.

[05/17] Fleisher v. Standard Insurance Co.
In a case in which a long-term disability (LTD) insurance provider reduced a dentist's monthly benefits by the amount of the monthly benefits he received under a separate LTD insurance policy, the district court's dismissal of the dentist's ERISA claim is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not err in determining that the arbitrary and capricious standard of review of the plan administrator's decision applied; 2) the plan administrator reasonably determined that the other policy fell within the meaning of "another group insurance coverage" and so amounts paid under it could reduce the amount the defendant insurer owed.

[05/16] Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Stolberg
In a suit by an insurer to obtain a declaration that its policy did not obligate it either to defend a personal injury suit or to indemnify the insured, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the insurer is affirmed, where: 1) the contract excluded coverage for injuries arising out of operations performed for insured by contractors; and 2) other exclusions in the policy did not create ambiguity so as to provide coverage.

[05/15] DMS Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (Zurich Services Corp.)
In a suit by a provider of commercial janitorial services against the third-party administrator for its workers' compensation insurance claims, a petition for writ of mandate seeking to vacate the trial court's order compelling arbitration is granted, where: 1) none of the plaintiffs' agreements with their administrator contained an arbitration clause; and 2) the trial court erred in compelling arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, because the plaintiffs' claims against the administrator were not founded in, or inextricably intertwined with, the deductible agreement with the insurer, which contained the arbitration clause.

Read More

Intellectual Property

[05/17] In re Baxter International, Inc.
In a case involving a patent on hemodialysis machines, a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirming the examiner's rejections of claims for obviousness is affirmed, where: 1) substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that prior art disclosed limitations of a claim; and 2) the Board did not erroneously construe a term in several other claims, and so substantial evidence supported the rejections of those claims.

[05/14] Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In a patent infringement action brought by Apple against Samsung, the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed with respect to three of the four patents at issue, where: 1) as to two iPhone design patents and a patent on a "bounce-back" feature, the district court correctly determined that there would be no irreparable harm to Apple from Samsung's infringement; but 2) the district court erred in concluding that there was likely to be a substantial question as to the validity of an iPad design patent, so remand was necessary for findings on other questions bearing on injunctive relief.

[05/14] Gaylord v. US
In a copyright infringement action by the holder of copyright on statues that are part of the Korean War Memorial, brought against the U.S. Postal Service, which issued stamps bearing a photograph of the statutes, the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims awarding the plaintiff $5,000 is vacated and the case remanded, where the Claims Court incorrectly limited the plaintiff's damages to the Postal Service’s highest past license payment and denied prejudgment interest.

[05/11] Banco Popular de Puerto Rico v. Asociacion de Compositores y Editores de Musica Latinoamericana
In consolidated copyright infringement cases, the First Circuit holds that: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing a music publisher and its affiliate to litigate copyright infringement claims as to four songs used in live Christmas concerts produced by a bank, as those songs were not part of a settlement agreement; 2) the evidence of infringement was sufficient; 3) the district court did not err by twice denying the bank the opportunity to introduce certain evidence; 4) the district court correctly found that a publisher owned a song and that parties infringed its rights by retroactively licensing the performance rights to that song, and the award of damages was proper; and 5) the bank was not entitled to an offset or return of the monies it paid in performance fees for two songs.

Read More

International Law

[05/03] US v. Bond
A conviction under the penal provision of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 is affirmed, where: 1) the defendant's behavior clearly constituted unlawful possession and use of a chemical weapon under the Act; 2) the Convention is valid under any reasonable conception of the Treaty Power's scope; 3) the Act is valid under the Necessary and Proper Clause, as it does not go beyond the Convention; and 4) the Act does not disrupt the balance of power between the federal government and the states in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

[04/18] Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority
In a suit against the Palestinian Authority and the PLO under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA) brought by the estate of a person killed in the West Bank, dismissal of the case is affirmed, as the TVPA's use of the term "individual" encompasses only natural persons and so does not impose liability against organizations.

[04/13] Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd v. Ficeto
In a suit by nine Cayman Islands hedge funds alleging fraudulent trading of securities by their investment managers, the district court's judgment is: 1) reversed insofar as it dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because whether section 10(b) of the Exchange Act applies to certain conduct is a "merits" question; but 2) affirmed in its dismissal of the complaint, where the complaint failed to state claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 because it did not adequately allege the existence of domestic securities transactions.

[03/30] NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina
A judgment granting and confirming attachment and restraining orders against a bank account owned by an instrumentality of the Republic of Argentina is affirmed, where the Republic's payment of the purchase price of commercial goods to a seller on behalf of a third party recipient constituted a "commercial activity" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and so the funds were subject to attachment pursuant to 28 USC section 1610.

Read More

Labor & Employment Law

[05/18] Crowther v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
In consolidated negligence actions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) against two railroad defendants brought by a former employee, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed, where: 1) no fact-finder could reasonably have inferred that the plaintiff first became aware of a work connection with his knee pain and neck injury within the period of limitation; 2) there was no error in entering judgment as a matter of law on negligence claims based on inadequate tools and failure to obtain ergonomic studies of the activities required to perform the plaintiff's various jobs; and 3) it was not reversible error to admit collateral source evidence that the plaintiff was receiving disability benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act.

[05/16] Fitzsimons v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group
In a suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) brought by a physician against a medical group of which she was a partner, alleging unlawful retaliation for opposing sexual harassment of an employee, the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant is reversed, where: 1) the harassment of the defendant's employees, if proven, was an unlawful practice for which the defendant would be liable; 2) FEHA made it an unlawful practice for the defendant to retaliate against any "person" for opposing that harassment; and 3) "person" includes a partner.

[05/16] People ex rel. Harris v. Sunset Car Wash, LLC
In a state action against a car wash, seeking to recover unpaid wages and penalties owed by a company that had operated a car wash at the same location before being evicted by the property owner, judgment in favor of the People is affirmed, where: 1) successor liability applied under Labor Code section 2066, as the plain meaning of "successor" is any entity defined in the four clauses of section 2066; 2) reliance on external definitions of "successor" would defeat the purpose of section 2066; and 3) section 2066 provides the necessary notice of the potential for successor liability for labor law violations, and so does not violate due process.

[05/15] Harman Mining Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, DOL
In a case in which an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that a man suffered disabling obstructive lung disease arising out of his work as a coal miner and awarded his widow black lung benefits payable by his former employer, a petition for review is denied, where the award of benefits found support in the record and accorded with the Administrative Procedure Act, as the ALJ properly evaluated the appropriate weight to accord conflicting medical opinions.

Read More

Tax Law

[05/18] Welch v. US
In a suit seeking a refund of an alleged overpayment of taxes on grounds that deficiencies were assessed after the expiration of the governing statute of limitations, summary judgment to the IRS is: 1) affirmed as to the 1992 tax year, where the evidence submitted was sufficient to corroborate mailing of the 1992 notice of deficiency prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations; and 2) reversed as to the 1995 tax year, where the government failed to demonstrate the existence of the 1995 notice of deficiency and the date of its mailing by competent and persuasive evidence.

[05/16] Assessor for County of Santa Barbara v. Assessment Appeals Board No. 1
In a case involving the tax assessment of transfers of ownership in two tenant-owned mobilehome parks, in which an assessment appeals board overturned a county assessor's valuation of land underlying mobilehomes, the trial court's denial of a petition for administrative mandamus is affirmed, where: 1) Rev. and Tax. Code section 62.1(c)(1) and (2) require valuation of the underlying space by using a formula based a pro rata portion of the real property of the park; and 2) as to the properties at issue, the Board applied the appropriate valuation method correctly and its findings were supported by substantial evidence.

[05/14] Hall v. US
In Chapter 12 bankruptcy proceedings in which the debtors proposed treating a capital gains tax on the postpetition sale of their farm as an unsecured claim to be paid to the extent funds were available, with the unpaid balance being discharged, the objection of the IRS is sustained, as the federal income tax liability resulting from the sale was not "incurred by the estate" under section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, and thus was neither collectible nor dischargeable in the Chapter 12 plan.

[05/03] Estate of Morgens v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
In a case in which the IRS determined a deficiency based on the failure of an estate to include gift tax paid by the donee trustees of a Qualifying Terminable Interest in Property (QTIP) trust within three years prior to the decedent's death, the Tax Court's ruling in favor of the IRS is affirmed, where the "gross-up" rule of 26 USC section 2035(b) applied to the gift taxes paid on section 2519 "deemed" transfers, as the taxes were in effect "paid by" the decedent, since the trustees acted as a mere conduit of funds for the decedent, and liability remained with her.

Read More

Transportation

[05/03] North Carolina Wildlife Federation v. North Carolina Dep't of Transportation
In a suit by conservation groups against state and federal transportation agencies, arguing that the process by which the agencies approved a toll road violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the district court's grant of summary judgment to the agencies is vacated and the case remanded, where the agencies violated NEPA by failing to disclose critical assumptions underlying their decision to build the road and instead provided the public with incorrect information.

[05/03] Bready v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
By memorandum, it is held that the Appellate Division properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in each of two consolidated cases, where the defendant made a prima facie showing that it did not breach the duty of care applicable under the Federal Employer's Liability Act.

[04/26] New York ex rel. Grupp v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.
In a qui tam action brought on behalf of the state against a courier service for violations of the False Claims Act, the Appellate division's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed, where: 1) the claims were federally preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act; and 2) the market participant exception to federal preemption was inapplicable.

[04/25] US v. Apel
A conviction on three counts of trespassing on an air force base is reversed in light of US v. Parker, 651 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2011), which held that because a stretch of highway running through the base was subject to an easement, the federal government lacked the exclusive right of possession of the area on which the trespass allegedly occurred.

Read More