Case Summaries
Civil Procedure
Civil Rights
Education
Civil Procedure
[03/10]
Hesse v. Sprint Corp.
In a class action alleging that defendant Sprint Corp. unlawfully collected a Washington state tax from Washington customers, summary judgment for defendant is vacated and remanded where a prior class action settlement challenged Sprint's billing of customers for certain federal regulatory fees, and the Washington plaintiffs' interests were not adequately represented in that litigation.
[03/10]
Clos v. Corrections Corp. of Am.
In an action by a prisoner claiming that he suffered disability discrimination related to his severe hearing loss, plaintiff's appeal from partial summary judgment for defendants is dismissed where the district court's conclusory order provided no basis for a finding that plaintiff would face hardship or injustice by waiting to appeal until his remaining claim against defendants was fully resolved.
[03/10]
American Signature, Inc. v. US
In proceedings involving an importer of furniture that is subject to a 2005 antidumping duty order on certain entries of wooden bedroom furniture from China, a decision of the Court of International Trade denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is reversed as plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction, and therefore, the Court of International Trade is directed to grant the preliminary injunction prohibiting Customs or Commerce from taking any action to liquidate or reliquidate import entries that are the subject of this action.
[03/10]
Anchor Sav. Bank, FSB v. US
In one of the last Winstar cases arising out of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s, involving a plaintiff's suit alleging that the adoption of the FIRREA and its implementing regulations breached the government's obligations under supervisory merger contracts, judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed in part and remanded in part where: 1) the trial court did not commit clear err in finding that it was foreseeable that the breach would result in lost profits to plaintiff in an amount commensurate with the ultimate award for lost profits; 2) the trial court did not err in finding of a causal connection between the government's breach of contract and plaintiff's sale of RFC (a mortgage banking company); 3) the trial court did not err in awarding lost profit damages attributable to plaintiff's forced sale of RFC; 4) the trial court permissibly concluded that NAMCO (mortgage company) was a reasonable commercial substitute for RFC, and its purchase thus qualified as mitigation for the loss of RFC; but 5) the case is remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether an error was made in offsetting plaintiff's mitigation costs by NAMCO's retained earnings through 1997 and, if so, how to correct the error.
[03/10]
Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist. v. American Int'l Specilaty Lines Ins. Co.
In a sewerage district's suit for damages against an environmental liability insurer for denying coverage for costs incurred by the district in removing significant pollution on land it recently purchased, district court's judgment is reversed and remanded as the district court's finding that there was clear and convincing proof that a prior agreement existed between the insurance company and the sewerage district that the parcel would be covered property was clearly erroneous. Therefore, defendant is entitled to judgment on the sewerage district's reformation claim and, as a consequence, judgment in favor of defendant on its indemnity claim is vacated.
[03/10]
Russian Media Group, LLC v. Cable Am., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against defendant-cable television company claiming that it pirated Russian-language satellite television programming to enable it to compete unfairly against plaintiff's legitimate business, grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant and others from distributing Russian-language television to twenty specific apartment houses where they had been operating illegally is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in writing the injunction as it did; 2) defendants did not raise the preemption defense until after they had appealed the preliminary injunction and, as such, it is not appropriate to overturn an injunction on the basis of a defense that the district court had no opportunity to consider; 3) defendants' contentions that the plaintiff is not an "aggrieved party" are without merit; and 4) the district court properly rejected a res judicata defense.
[03/10]
Fortis Corp. Ins. SA. v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS
In a maritime shipping case involving a claim for rust damage to steel coils caused by exposure to seawater during a journey from Poland to Ohio, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) a ship manager charged with providing a Master, officers and crew, and performing various other ship-management tasks for the shipping vessel does not qualify as a "carrier" under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), and thus the COGSA's one year-statute of limitations does not bar the underlying suit; and 2) defendant's claim that the district court's finding of negligence was based on clearly erroneous factual findings is rejected.
[03/09]
Wampler v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.
In an antitrust action on behalf of a putative class of all residents of multiple dwelling units (MDUs) in five states who were limited to voice, video, and Internet service by contracts with defendant AT&T, dismissal of the action is affirmed where a single MDU (or MDUs in the aggregate) could not plausibly be considered a relevant geographic market for antitrust purposes. (Revised opinion)
More...
Civil Rights
[03/10]
Clos v. Corrections Corp. of Am.
In an action by a prisoner claiming that he suffered disability discrimination related to his severe hearing loss, plaintiff's appeal from partial summary judgment for defendants is dismissed where the district court's conclusory order provided no basis for a finding that plaintiff would face hardship or injustice by waiting to appeal until his remaining claim against defendants was fully resolved.
[03/10]
Cameron v. N.Y.
In an action for false arrest and malicious prosecution, judgment for defendant-officers is reversed where: 1) prosecutors' opinions as to probable cause and complaining officers' credibility are irrelevant in virtually all cases involving claims of malicious prosecution; and 2) the introduction of such evidence was not harmless because it provided strong external validation for propositions that otherwise would have come in only from the defendants' mouths.
[03/09]
Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.
[03/09]
Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming excessive force by defendants-officers, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to show as a matter of law that plaintiff's decedent did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; 2) the district court properly found that defendants failed to show as a matter of law that the emergency and exigency exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applied; 3) defendants failed to show that there were no questions of fact regarding whether a security guard had apparent authority to consent and implied consent; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the officers intentionally or recklessly provoked a confrontation.
[03/09]
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.
In an employment discrimination and retaliation action brought by a teacher at a religious school claiming violations of the ADA, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the "ministerial exception" is vacated and remanded as, given the factual findings relating to plaintiff's primary duties as a teacher, the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying her as a ministerial employee.
[03/09]
Redd v. Wright
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of plaintiff inmate's confinement in tuberculosis hold following his refusal to submit to tuberculosis testing, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) prior precedent did not "clearly foreshadow" a holding that the testing policy, as applied in this case, violated plaintiff's Free Exercise rights; 2) it could not reasonably be said that defendants acted in violation of clearly established Eighth Amendment law by implementing the policy; and 3) it was not clearly established that plaintiff was entitled to some kind of notice that religious objectors could be exempt from the policy.
[03/08]
McBeth v. Himes
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of an investigation by the sheriff's office and the Colorado Department of Human Services that resulted in plaintiff surrendering her license to run a daycare facility in Colorado, partial summary judgment based on qualified immunity to defendant-officials is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff voluntarily relinquished her license before any suspension proceedings could take place; and 2) defendants made a prima facie showing that they acted objectively reasonably when they sought suspension of plaintiff's daycare license. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiff failed to allege and prove that the state officials lacked cause to seek suspension of her license.
[03/05]
Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).
More...
Education
[03/09]
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.
In an employment discrimination and retaliation action brought by a teacher at a religious school claiming violations of the ADA, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the "ministerial exception" is vacated and remanded as, given the factual findings relating to plaintiff's primary duties as a teacher, the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying her as a ministerial employee.
[03/02]
Doe v. Kamehamema Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate
In a racial discrimination action against a school district in which plaintiffs, four minor children, sought to proceed anonymously in their suit, dismissal of the action is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow anonymity because the district court did not clearly err in its conclusion that plaintiffs did not reasonably fear severe harm.
[03/01]
San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.
In qui tam plaintiffs' suit seeking to recover funds on behalf of the San Francisco Unified School District under the California False Claims Act (CFCA), trial court's dismissal of the action is reversed as, under the CFCA, a vendor impliedly certifies that it complies with its express contractual requirements when it bills a public agency for providing goods and services, and allegations that the implied certification was false and had a natural tendency to influence the public agency's decision to pay for the goods or services are sufficient to survive a demurrer.
[02/23]
Fairchild v. Liberty Indep. Sch. Dist.
In an action claiming that defendants violated plaintiff's First Amendment rights after firing her from a public school teacher position because they did not allow her at a school board meeting to present her side of her troubles with a teacher for whom she had been an aide, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the board's policies were both viewpoint-neutral and reasonable in light of the forum's purpose.
[02/23]
D.L. v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 497
In an action challenging a local school district's conclusion that plaintiff-students were ineligible for special education services, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs abandoned their Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act claims by failing to provide supplemental briefing to clarify and update the claims; and 2) plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not establish any causation between defendants' allegedly discriminatory conduct and any injury suffered by plaintiffs.
[02/16]
Reinhardt v. Albuquerque Pub. Schs. Bd. of Educ.
In a First Amendment and Rehabilitation Act action based on defendant public school system's reduction of plaintiff to a standard contract to work with special education students because her caseload did not support an extended contract, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) it was apparent from the undisputed facts that plaintiff engaged in protected activity for the purposes of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act through at least the date she filed her state court complaint; 2) there was an issue of material fact as to whether defendant deliberately maintained inaccurate caseload lists that artificially reduced plaintiff's workload to reduce her salary; and 3) plaintiff felt that she had a duty to report the denial of services to special education students as part of her professional obligations, and the district court found this to be conclusive that plaintiff was speaking as an employee and not as a private citizen.
[02/16]
Kennedy v. City of Cincinnati
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a city, a police officer, and a swimming pool supervisor, for having his pool access denied after complaints from some members that he was staring at children inappropriately, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) plaintiff did not have a property interest in his $10 city pool token sufficient to invoke the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause; and 2) it is clear that plaintiff had a liberty interest to remain in public place of his choice and that defendants interfered with this interest by banning him from entering any property deemed a part of the city's recreational system without procedural due process.
[02/12]
Galveston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Jaco
In plaintiff's action against a school district under the Texas Whistleblower Act, claiming that he was demoted from his position as a director of athletics and extracurricular activities for reporting a student's violations of the University Interscholastic League's (UIL) eligibility rules to officials, trial court's denial of defendant's motion for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is reversed and remanded as the elements of Tex. Gov Code section 554.002(a) can be considered to determine both jurisdiction and liability, and thus, whether the reporting of a violation of UIL rules and regulations to the UIL is a good-faith report of a violation of law to an appropriate law-enforcement authority is a jurisdictional question.
More...
|
