Case Summaries

Contracts

[12/31] Alpine Bank v. Hubbell
In a lawsuit arising after plaintiffs failed to repay a construction loan made by plaintiff-bank, summary judgment against defendants-homeowners on all claims and on their counterclaims is affirmed where: 1) a contract counterclaim, based on an alleged breach of the contractually implied duty of good faith and fair dealing arising from bank's failure to oversee the construction, was barred by a provision in the parties' agreement; 2) for purposes of negligent-misrepresentation counterclaims, one alleged misrepresentation regarding the contractor was nonactionable puffery and the others lacked the requisite state of mind; 3) bank did not have a duty to disclose negative information regarding the construction or the contractor; and 4) bank's advertising slogan did not violate the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

[01/06] CP Solutions PTE, Ltd. v. Gen. Elec. Co.
In a commercial contract dispute, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed and remanded where: 1) contrary to the district court's ruling, one of the defendants was not an indispensable party; and 2) thus, that defendant could be dropped as a party so as to preserve diversity jurisdiction.

[01/06] Edwards v. Kia Motors of Am., Inc.
Mutual release agreement between an auto dealer and the manufacturer, in which Plaintiffs relinquished all existing legal claims against the manufacturer for valid consideration, is enforceable and not prohibited by the Alabama Motor Vehicle Franchise Act. Plaintiffs' various common law claims were correctly dismissed because they do not fall within the limited exceptions to their release agreement.

[01/05] Robinson v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.
Motorist's warranty claims were properly dismissed because the express and implied warranties do not cover tread wear of the original equipment tires on his minivan. The vehicle warranty expressly and repeatedly excludes tires from coverage, and the warranty from Michelin expires with the tread; because these are special "run-flat" tires, their merchantability cannot be determined by a comparison to standard passenger tires.

[12/15] Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of the US of Am., Inc.
In seeking to implement its "Wisconsin Realignment Plan," Defendant is enjoined from interfering with the current jurisdiction of a chartered, local council of Girl Scouts, pending final resolution on the merits of the local council's legal challenge. As a "dealer" protected by the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, the local council enjoys a statutory presumption that it would be irreparably harmed by Defendant's attempts to unilaterally remove a large portion of its jurisdiction.

More...

Environmental Law

[12/29] People v. Roscoe
Following judgment finding defendants jointly and severally liable for penalties pursuant to laws governing underground storage of hazardous substances, judgment against defendant is affirmed where the responsible corporate officer doctrine applies to Health and Safety Code section 25299(a)(6) of the tank laws and thus subjects to liability as an "operator" a corporate officer who had "a responsible share in the furtherance of the transaction which the statute outlaws", even where the corporation itself was also found to be the operator.

[12/29] Freeman v. Blue Ridge Paper Prods., Inc.
The Class Action Fairness Act prevents plaintiffs from artificially structuring their suits to avoid federal jurisdiction. There is no colorable basis for dividing this suit into five separate water-pollution nuisance claims, each covering a successive six-month time period and seeking 4.9 million dollars in damages, other than to frustrate CAFA.

[12/29] Coalition of Watershed Towns v. EPA
Towns in a watershed region of New York lack standing to sue the Environmental Protection Agency. In seeking review of two of the Agency's "final actions" pertaining to the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, they failed to show that their proposed injuries were likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision.

[12/23] Devon Energy Corp. v. Kempthorne
Pursuant to plaintiff's lease to extract coalbed methane from federal land in Wyoming, final order issued by US Department of the Interior (DOI) requiring plaintiff to retroactively recalculate royalties owed to the government is affirmed where: 1) the DOI's interpretation of the marketable condition rule reflected a reasonable construction of the rule; 2) the agency's order was not at odds with the plain language of the rule, nor did it effectively "amend," rather than reasonably construe the rule; and 3) plaintiff's claim that DOI's order conflicted with a prior interpretation of the marketable condition rule is rejected.

[12/23] American Forest & Paper Assoc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
Petition for review of defendant-Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) interpretation of a term used in amendment to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) is denied where defendant-FERC's interpretation of the term "markets" in 16 U.S.C. section 824a-3(m)(1)(A)(ii) encompassing both competitive and non-competitive markets was reasonable.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[01/05] California Teachers Ass'n v. Pub. Employment Relations Bd.
Public Employment Relations Board erred in dismissing a complaint against a charter school for terminating teachers in violation of the Educational Employment Relations Act. The Board incorrectly found that the Act did not protect the teachers' actions in sending a letter to parents criticizing the school's financial management, and because the teachers had been fired for sending the letter, the terminations violated the Act.

[01/05] C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp.
Trial court erred in sustaining demurrer to complaint against medical center for sexual harassment under Civil Code section 51.9 and for the negligent hiring, supervision and retention of nursing assistant who sexually assaulted and harassed plaintiff. Court holds that: 1) the judicially-noticed documents offered by defendant do not negate plaintiff's allegations that defendant directly or indirectly employed nursing assistant who sexually harassed plaintiff; 2) plaintiff was not required to allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship between herself and the medical center to state a viable claim for sexual harassment under section 51.9; and 3) complaint contains adequate allegations to hold the defendant corporation liable under section 51.9 for the sexual abuse of plaintiff by its employee.

[01/05] Jones v. Calvert Group, Ltd.
Terminated employee's retaliation claim was improperly dismissed by the district court for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff is excused from exhausting her retaliation claim, which alleges ongoing retaliation for the filing of her previous EEOC claim, because the alleged retaliatory termination was merely the predictable culmination of the employer's alleged retaliatory conduct.

[12/15] 520 S. Michigan Ave. Assocs., Ltd. v. Shannon
Illinois statute purporting to set required break periods for hotel restroom attendants is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. The statute is not a true minimum labor standard statute of general application because it purports to give specific protections to a narrow group of employees (hotel room attendants working in a single county in Illinois) and therefore its protections are akin to benefits that should be sought through collective bargaining rather than legislation.

[12/15] Ketelboeter v. Astrue
Denial of application for disability insurance benefits is affirmed. ALJ's decision to give greater weight to the state-agency doctors' opinions is supported by substantial evidence, where the treating physician's conclusion was internally inconsistent and there was scant objective evidence in support of the alleged severity of Plaintiff's self-reported symptoms.

More...

Oil & Gas

[12/30] Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FERC
Petitioner unsuccessfully challenges FERC's approval of the long-term reallocation of power-generating capacity among the affiliates of the Entergy system. The ALJ properly found that: 1) although there was an apparent transfer of costs between New Orleans and Entergy Gulf States, the rise in Gulf States's costs could not be attributed to the reallocation alone; 2) Gulf States was slated for its own long-term allocations in the future; and 3) the "bandwidth remedy" ensures a minimum level of rough equalization of costs.

[12/11] Transwestern Pipeline Co., LLC v. 17.19 Acres of Property Located in Maricopa County
In an action brought by an owner and operator of natural gas pipelines seeking to go forward with a planned natural gas pipeline serving Phoenix, denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction seeking immediate possession of defendants-landowners' parcels of land is affirmed where, until an order of condemnation issues pursuant to the requirements of section 717f(h) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), plaintiff has no substantive right of possession.

[12/11] Young v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees of only $1.00 to the prevailing defendant in a frivolous action brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, where the actual beneficiary of the attorney's fee award was a defendant to which an award could not otherwise have been made.

[12/11] Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Alabama Dep't of Revenue
Alabama's sales and use tax on diesel fuel, with its exemptions for motor and water carriers, does not discriminate against railroad companies in violation of Section 306(1)(d) of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976. Plaintiff was properly denied preliminary injunctive relief.

[06/13] Texaco Inc. v. US
In a tax case in which Texaco sought a tax refund of over $100 million under 26 U.S.C. section 1341(a) because it was required to pay out, pursuant to a settlement agreement with the Department of Energy, sums that it had previously included in its gross income, a ruling in favor of Texaco is vacated and remanded where the language in section 1341(b)(2) plainly precludes Texaco from using the computation of tax set forth in section 1341(a). Section 1341(b)(2) prohibits the use of a section 1341(a) computation by an entity other than a public utility with respect to any amount which was included in its gross income in a prior taxable year by reason of the sale or other disposition of stock in trade or inventory.

More...

Class Actions

[01/05] Gerardi v. Katz
Securities class actions covered by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 are removable to Federal court, subject to the exceptions in sections 1332(d)(9) and 1453(d). Section 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 does not insulate all Securities Act claims from removal under the 2005 Act.

[01/05] Stark Trading v. Falconbridge Ltd.
Securities fraud class action suit was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim where: 1) plaintiffs are sophisticated investors whose complaint, along with judicially-noticeable facts, reveals that they were not induced by a mining company's misrepresentations to tender their shares, and therefore they cannot show reliance under SEC Rule 10b-5; and 2) failure to allege that they sold any shares at a loss eviscerates their claim under section 11 of the Securities Exchange Act.

[01/05] Pub. Employees' Ret. Assoc. of Colorado v. Deloitte & Touche LLP
District court correctly dismissed securities class action against public company's accountants where Plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing the accountants' scienter. The allegations showed that company went to considerable lengths to conceal its fraud from the accountants, and the stronger and more plausible inference to be drawn from the facts alleged in the complaint is that the accountants did not know that the company was defrauding its investors, and therefore lacked scienter.

[12/31] Anderson v. US Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev.
Class certification was incorrectly granted to a group of displaced residents of four storm-damaged public housing developments in New Orleans. District court's authority to certify a class under Rule 23 does not permit it to structure a class around claims that the displaced residents never pled.

[12/30] Taylor v. United Parcel Serv. Inc.
In a race discrimination and retaliation suit brought by an African-American employee, district court erred in granting summary judgment to the employer where: 1) all claims were timely because the statute of limitations was tolled through the conclusion of an appeal on a similar discrimination class action against UPS in which plaintiff was a class member; and 2) plaintiff had submitted sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case of discriminatory and retaliatory pay disparity.

More...