Case Summaries
Civil Procedure
Civil Rights
Education
Civil Procedure
[07/08]
CTIA Wireless Ass'n v. FCC
Petition for review of an FCC order requiring commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers in the Gulf Coast to maintain a minimum amount of emergency backup power for all assets necessary to maintain communications that are normally powered from local commercial power is held in abeyance where the case is not ripe for review.
[07/08]
In re: Core Communications, Inc.
A petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the FCC to articulate a valid legal justification for its rules governing intercarrier compensation for telecommunications traffic bound for ISPs is granted where: 1) the agency failed for six years to respond to a court remand and effectively nullified the court's determination since the remand without vacatur left the rules in place and petitioner could not challenge the rules until the FCC stated its explanation; and 2) the rules will be vacated if the FFC does not respond the the court's remand by November 5, 2008.
[07/08]
Puerto Rico Ports Auth. v. Federal Maritime Comm'n
In a suit alleging violations of the federal Shipping Act of 1984 by petitioner-Puerto Rico Ports Authority arising out of the relocation of several private marine terminal operators, and certain post-relocation practices and conditions of the new facilities, denial of petitioner's motion for summary judgment is remanded with an order to dismiss the complaints where petitioner is an arm of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and is immune from suit absent its consent.
[07/08]
LM Ins. Corp. v. Spaulding Enterprises Inc.
In a suit attempting to collect an outstanding judgment against defendants, a dismissal ruling finding that plaintiff failed to meet the amount in controversy requirement is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) an alter ego claim satisfied the amount in controversy requirement because it is the case, not the claim, to which the minimum amount applies; 2) the breach of fiduciary duty claim satisfied the amount in controversy requirement since Illinois allows punitive damages for a breach of fiduciary duty; and 3) plaintiff failed to meet the amount in controversy requirement for fraud and conspiracy to defraud claims against one of the defendants.
[07/08]
Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey
Petition for review of an order reinstating a prior order of deportation for illegal entry is denied where: 1) 8 C.F.R. section 241.8 constitutes a valid interpretation of the reinstatement of removal statute, 8 U.S.C. section 1231(a)(5); 2) there was no prejudice resulting from the reinstatement of the prior deportation order; 3) the reinstatement of removal statute precludes collateral review of the underlying deportation proceeding; and 4) petitioner was ineligible for any discretionary relief under immigration laws as an illegal reentrant.
[07/08]
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Kirkland
An appeal from a finding of contempt and remedial sanction that followed defendant's alleged violation of an asset freeze, which was entered after the SEC filed a complaint against him, is dismissed where the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the order of civil contempt entered below.
[07/08]
Peter Lederese & Assocs., Inc. v. World Institute of Scientology Enters., Int'l
In an appeal involving the applicability of the defense of laches in a copyright infringement suit, the circuit court rules there is a strong presumption that a plaintiff's suit is timely if it is filed before the statute of limitations has run. Only in the most extraordinary circumstances will laches be recognized as a defense. Further, even where such extraordinary circumstances exist, laches serves as a bar only to the recovery of retrospective damages, not to prospective relief. In a copyright dispute in which plaintiff-exclusive licensee of a book claimed that three entities affiliated with the Church of Scientology have been infringing its copyright by incorporating portions of the book into their instructional course materials, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part but vacated in part due to error in the district court's application of the fair use doctrine and the laches defense to one claim.
[07/07]
Silvercreek Mgmt. Inc v. Banc of Am. Sec. LLC
In a suit arising out of the Enron collapse, denial of a motion to extend a class settlement opt-out deadline is affirmed where: 1) the evidence presented by plaintiff and the performance of plaintiff's counsel fell below the threshold required for neglect to be excusable; and 2) plaintiff waived its due process objection for failure to raise it in district court.
More...
Civil Rights
[07/08]
Mobley v. Allstate Ins. Co.
In a suit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) alleging failure to accommodate plaintiff's disability, discriminatory termination, and unlawful retaliation, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant reasonably accommodated plaintiff's disability; 2) plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie case that she was terminated due to discrimination and not for failure to meet her job's performance requirements; and 3) the retaliation claim failed as she did not establish a causal connection between her protected activity and the adverse action.
[07/07]
Strandlund v. Hawley
In an action under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988 alleging violations of constitutional rights and common law torts, an order dropping and dismissing plaintiffs' claims for lack of commonality is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) plaintiffs' notice of appeal was timely; and 2) the court abused its discretion in dismissing the claims without prejudice since severance under Rule 21 would have held the statute of limitations in abeyance and permitted them to proceed with individual actions.
[07/07]
Molski v. Arciero Wine Group
In an underlying suit under the American with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the Disabled Persons Act, an award of attorney's fees to defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant was the prevailing party since plaintiff did not obtain any of the relief sought and the state action played no role in the remediation that took place during a suit filed in federal court; and 2) the Civil Code section 55 claim entitled defendant to attorney's fees if it prevailed.
[07/07]
In re: Subpoena to Witzel
In an appeal arising out of a discovery dispute in litigation pending in a California district court involving certain textbook revisions, a Massachusetts district court's order denying a motion to compel nonparty-professor to comply with a subpoena is affirmed where there was no abuse of discretion in a finding that the documents and communications sought were not relevant and, therefore, not discoverable.
[07/07]
Matthews v. Wis. Energy Corp. Inc.
In a suit alleging breach of a post-employment settlement agreement and retaliation in which plaintiff alleged that defendant gave prejudicial job references after her departure, summary judgment and an award of attorney's fees for defendant is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the fees award vacated where: 1) parol evidence could not be used to prove the terms of defendant's policy regarding reference checks; 2) the definition of "reference" did not demand that the recipient be a potential employer; 3) language setting a limitation on disclosure was ambiguous and it was for the jury to decide the intent of the parties, as well as the breach of contract claim based on the disclosure; and 4) the retaliation claim failed as she did not show an "adverse employment action."
[07/07]
Paneccasio v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc.
In an action alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and ERISA arising after plaintiff's former employer terminated his deferred compensation plan, paid him deferred income, and ended his life insurance benefit, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) "top hat plans", such as the one plaintiff participated in, are exempt from ERISA's provisions; 2) defendant's decision to terminate the plan was not arbitrary or capricious; 3) there was no evidence that plaintiff was induced into early retirement or that defendants anticipated an early termination of the plan; 4) plaintiff's ADEA claim was time barred and not subject to tolling; and 5) dismissal of plaintiff's state law claims was proper.
[07/07]
Richardson v. Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities
In a suit alleging discrimination and retaliation against plaintiff's former employer and her union, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the law governing contracts that purport to release or waive Title VII rights is independent of the law governing employer actions taken in retaliation for, and intended to deter, employee opposition to unlawful employment practices; 2) a union may contract to limit an employee's legal recourse by agreeing to either arbitrate or file a charge; and 3) union's decision to adhere to the election of remedies provision by withdrawing the arbitration after plaintiff filed her claim with the CHRO was non-discriminatory.
[07/03]
Easley v. Reuss
On petition for rehearing, the circuit court grants a petition to cure an administrative error to a prior order but declines further review where: 1) petitioner failed to meet the strict requirements of Appellate Rule 35 for a hearing en banc; and 2) petitioner was raising issues that were not previously raised.
More...
Education
[07/07]
In re: Subpoena to Witzel
In an appeal arising out of a discovery dispute in litigation pending in a California district court involving certain textbook revisions, a Massachusetts district court's order denying a motion to compel nonparty-professor to comply with a subpoena is affirmed where there was no abuse of discretion in a finding that the documents and communications sought were not relevant and, therefore, not discoverable.
[07/03]
Kountze v. Gaines
In an action seeking to remove trustees from an educational board, summary judgment for defendants and imposition of sanctions on plaintiff are both affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in finding that plaintiff was not a member of the board at the time he filed this derivative action and that he lacked capacity under state law to bring the action; and 2) there was no abuse of discretion in sanctioning plaintiff on basis that he included a defendant for improper purpose, knowing that the claims against it were barred by a prior dismissal.
[07/02]
Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff Dep't
In an action alleging police officers violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights by ordering them to remove their truck (which displayed enlarged, graphic photographs of early-term aborted fetuses) from an area adjacent to a middle school, and by detaining them and searching the vehicle, summary judgment and dismissal rulings for defendants are reversed in part where: 1) plaintiffs' First Amendment rights were violated; 2) however, individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from a damages action on the issue; 3) plaintiffs established a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights because of the unreasonable length of two individuals' detention; and 4) they raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the deputy sheriffs unlawfully entered their security vehicle.
[07/02]
S.S. v. E. Kentucky Univ.
In a suit raising Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. section 1983, and state law claims alleging discrimination while plaintiff attended a middle school run by defendants, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in denying both an overbroad discovery request and a request for an increase in the page limit for a pleading; 2) plaintiff's ADA and section 504 claims failed because the alleged disparate treatment originated from the fact that defendant investigated every incident plaintiff complained about and determined a different response depending on the circumstances; 3) dismissal of procedural due process claims was proper; 4) a substantive due process claim failed; 5) section 1983 equal protection claims failed because any difference in treatment was due to defendant's attempts to protect plaintiff from harassment or to discipline him when he was responsible for incidents with other classmates; and 6) state law claims failed as they did not raise a genuine issue of material fact.
[07/02]
Appel v. Spiridon
A preliminary injunction, preventing defendants from requiring plaintiff to submit to a psychological examination in order to maintain her teaching position at a state school, is reversed and remanded in light of a recent Supreme Court decision holding that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to a public employee asserting a violation of the Clause based on a "class of one" theory.
[06/30]
Rodi v. S. New England Sch. of Law
In a lawsuit filed against plaintiff's alma mater legal institution claiming that the school's deans fraudulently misrepresented the school's prospects for ABA accreditation upon which he detrimentally relied upon, summary judgment for law school is affirmed where no rational jury could find plaintiff's reliance upon weak predictions of accreditation to be reasonable.
[06/25]
Baker v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ.
In an action against employer alleging racial discrimination, summary judgment for employer premised on the statute of limitations bar is reversed and remanded where the district court erred in applying the 2-year section 1983 statute of limitations since the limitations period applicable to plaintiff's claims was 4 years pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1658.
[06/24]
Samnorwood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Texas
In a suit challenging whether a thirty-six year old federal court desegregation order could properly be applied to two school districts when they were not a party to the suit when the order was entered and have never been found to have discriminated against students since voluntarily desegregating in the 1960's, the circuit court rules that application of the modified order to the two districts was unwarranted under current school desegregation law.
More...
|
