News

Case Summaries

Contracts

[03/12] Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of America v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., Inc.
In plaintiff-insurers' action seeking reimbursement for their settlement contribution against its insured arising from an underlying lawsuit for antitrust violation and tortious interference with contract and with other business relations, district court's judgment is affirmed in its entirety where: 1) Kentucky will allow reimbursement for an insurer after a unilateral reservation of rights by the insurer over the objection of the insured in at least the narrow circumstances posed in this case and in cases such as Blue Ridge; 2) the district court did not err in finding that disparagement was not part of the underlying litigation at the time of the settlement, and thus, plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of the settlement funds paid on behalf of the defendant; 3) the district court was correct in determining that plaintiff's duty to defend was triggered on November 8, 1999, the date the First Amended Complaint was docketed; and 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the damages and pre-judgment interest awarded.

[03/11] Freedman v. Brutzkus
In plaintiff's action for fraud against defendants, trial court's dismissal of the action following the sustaining of defendants' demurrer is affirmed as a signature of an attorney under the legend "approved as to form and content" on a contract does not amount to an actionable representation to an opposing party's attorney that can provide a basis for tort liability.

[03/11] Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Metabolite Labs., Inc.
In an action for a declaratory judgment that plaintiff did not breach a license agreement for failure to pay know-how royalties on homocysteine assays performed after judgment had been entered in a prior patent infringement and breach of contract action, defendant's appeal from summary judgment for plaintiff is transferred to the Tenth Circuit as: 1) the present cause of action does not arise under federal patent law nor does defendant's right to relief necessarily depend on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, and thus, this court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal; and 2) this action is a state law contract dispute over know-how royalties brought pursuant to the district court's diversity jurisdiction.

[03/11] Griswold v. Cty. of Hillsborough
In an action by plaintiff, a disabled veteran, claiming that defendants violated his rights under the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 by interfering with plaintiff's businesses' ability to obtain certain government contracts, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiff's claims were barred under the doctrine of res judicata due to earlier litigation brought by plaintiff's companies arising from the same facts.

[03/10] Abdelhamid v. Fire Ins. Exch.
In homeowner's action against her insurance company after it denied coverage to her for the fire that burned her house down, summary judgment in favor of the insurance company is affirmed as the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on the breach of contract claim as plaintiff's failure to comply constituted material breach of her contractual duties.

More...

Environmental Law

[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.

[03/09] Native Ecosystems Council v. Tidwell
In an action challenging the Forest Service's approval of a project to update grazing allotments in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) because the Forest Service's environmental assessment was based on a nonexistent management indicator species, its habitat proxy analysis was not reliable; and 2) the Forest Service failed to take the requisite "hard look" at the project as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

[03/08] Kane Cty. v. US
In an appeal from the denial of plaintiffs' motion to intervene in an action brought by Kane County, Utah, to quiet title to several purported rights-of-way across federal public lands, the order is affirmed where: 1) even assuming plaintiffs had an interest in the quiet title proceedings at issue, plaintiffs failed to establish that the U.S. could not adequately represent plaintiffs' interest; and 2) the denial of permissive intervention was not arbitrary and capricious.

[03/08] Morris v. US Nuclear Reg. Comm'n.
In a petition for review of a license granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct in situ leach mining for uranium on four sites in northwest New Mexico, the petition is denied where: 1) the clear language of 10 C.F.R. section 20.1301(a)(1) supported the NRC's decision to focus only on the licensed operation; 2) the National Environmental Policy Act did not prohibit approval of projects with negative cumulative effects; it only required that the agency consider and disclose such effects; and 3) there was no evidence in the administrative record to support petitioners' assertion that the NRC based its adoption of the nine-pore-volume restoration effort on economic reasons.

[03/04] MacClarence v. EPA
In a petition for review of the EPA's order denying petitioner's request that the EPA object to the issuance of a Clean Air Act Title V permit for pollutant-emitting activities at an oil and gas processing facility, the petition is denied where: 1) the EPA Administrator's conclusion that petitioner failed to provide adequate information to support his claim that the entire facility should be aggregated was not arbitrary or capricious; and 2) the Administrator's order denying the petition properly set forth petitioner's burden under 42 U.S.C. section 7661d(b)(2), stating that "to justify exercise of an objection by EPA to a title V permit pursuant to section 7661d(b)(2), a petitioner must demonstrate that the permit is not in compliance with the requirements of the CAA" and later concluding that "the general allegations of the Petitioner in the April 2004 Petition . . . fail to demonstrate a basis for Petitioner's claim that Revision 1 to the GC 1 Permit violates the CAA . . . ."

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[03/12] Holschen v. Int'l. Union of Painters
In an action by a former union painter against the union alleging several violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), as well as a state law claim for intentional interference with a valid business expectancy, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) this was not a situation where the circumstances themselves presented a significant danger of bias such that plaintiff was excused from presenting at least some evidence of actual bias involving one or more trial board members in order to survive summary judgment; 2) evidence of ad hoc retaliation by an individual union member did not state a cause of action for a free speech violation under the LMRDA; and 3) there was no evidence the union itself formally disciplined plaintiff in retaliation for his exercise of free speech rights.

[03/12] Stockwell v. City of Harvey
In white firefighters' suit against a city claiming that it failed to promote them within its fire department because of their race, summary judgment in favor of the city is affirmed where: 1) the city, through its fire chief, has set forth legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for declining to promote the plaintiffs to deputy and/or assistant chief; and 2) plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the reasons were pretextual.

[03/12] Serafinn v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 722
In plaintiff's action against his local union and the joint council claiming that they impaired his free speech and assembly rights, fined him, and suspended his union membership without due process, grant of summary judgment to the joint council and jury's ruling against the local in favor of the plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) local's claims of error fail because they dispute jury instructions either that actually benefited it or for which the local waived any challenge; 2) plaintiff's cross-appeal of the district court's denial of relief from summary judgment fails because the new evidence he asks for consideration is cumulative; 3) plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding his attorneys' fees award fails because he neglected to refute the district court's reasons in crafting it; and 4) the parties' remaining claims are without merit.

[03/11] California Sch. Employees Ass'n v. Torrance Unified Sch. Dist.
In plaintiffs' suit against a school district claiming that it violated Education Code section 45203 by failing to pay regular wages to classified employees who did not work on staff development student free days, superior court's denial of plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandate is affirmed as, under the plain meaning of the statute, classified employees who did not work on staff development student free days were not entitled to be paid regular wages for such days.

[03/11] Granfield v. CSX Transp., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against his employer in violations of the Federal Employer's Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Ac, claiming that he developed "tennis elbow" as a result of having to manipulate defective controls in the cabin of his locomotive, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a reasonable jury could have concluded that plaintiff's claim was not time barred, had defendant chosen to contest this showing by asking the jury instruction and arguing the matter to the jury; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a doctor as an expert on the issue of causation; 3) brief statements by a witness as to the contents of a letter was harmless error; and 4) plaintiff's counsel's statements in closing arguments were adequately dealt with by the district judge's instructions and no plain error occurred.

More...

Oil & Gas

[03/10] US v. Valencia
Defendants' wire fraud convictions arising from alleged efforts to manipulate natural gas markets are affirmed where: 1) the extensive, incriminating in-court testimony provided by a witness and others, in conjunction with inculpatory, properly admitted exhibits, heavily dampened the magnitude of whatever prejudicial effect an erroneously admitted whistle-blower letter had upon the jury; 2) because a witness's knowledge and analysis were derived from duties he held at defendants' employer, his opinions were admissible as testimony based upon personal knowledge and experience gained while employed there; 3) the district court did not err in allowing the government's expert to testify about the tendency of defendants' false trade reports to affect the indices published by Inside FERC and NGI.

[03/04] MacClarence v. EPA
In a petition for review of the EPA's order denying petitioner's request that the EPA object to the issuance of a Clean Air Act Title V permit for pollutant-emitting activities at an oil and gas processing facility, the petition is denied where: 1) the EPA Administrator's conclusion that petitioner failed to provide adequate information to support his claim that the entire facility should be aggregated was not arbitrary or capricious; and 2) the Administrator's order denying the petition properly set forth petitioner's burden under 42 U.S.C. section 7661d(b)(2), stating that "to justify exercise of an objection by EPA to a title V permit pursuant to section 7661d(b)(2), a petitioner must demonstrate that the permit is not in compliance with the requirements of the CAA" and later concluding that "the general allegations of the Petitioner in the April 2004 Petition . . . fail to demonstrate a basis for Petitioner's claim that Revision 1 to the GC 1 Permit violates the CAA . . . ."

[03/02] Mac's Shell Serv., Inc. v. Shell Oil Prods. Co.
In an action under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (Act) by service station franchisees, alleging that a petroleum franchisor, Shell, and its assignee had constructively terminated their franchises and constructively failed to renew their franchise relationships by substantially changing the rental terms that the dealers had enjoyed for years, increasing costs for many of them, a circuit court's order partially affirming judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where a franchisee who signs and operates under a renewal agreement with a franchisor may not maintain a constructive nonrenewal claim under the Act. However, the court of appeals' order is reversed in part where a franchisee cannot recover for constructive termination under the Act if the franchisor's allegedly wrongful conduct did not compel the franchisee to abandon its franchise.

[02/26] Resolute Natural Resources Co. v. FERC
In a petition for review of certain orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) declining to investigate allegedly anticompetitive conduct by a refining company involving oil pipelines in New Mexico, the petition is dismissed where FERC decisions not to investigate were not subject to review.

[02/26] Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. v. FERC
In a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) decision to allow a pipeline to change its rates without first obtaining the FERC's approval, the petition is denied where the contract at issue specifically disclaimed the need for FERC approval of rate changes.

More...

Class Actions

[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.

[03/03] Byers v. Intuit, Inc.
In plaintiff's putative class action on behalf of U.S. taxpayers against the IRS and a consortium of companies in the electronic tax preparation and filing industry (FFA) claiming violations of the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA) in the charging of fees in exchange for providing e-filing services, as well as a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, dismissal of both claims is affirmed where: 1) the district court was correct in holding that the IOAA does not apply to the FFA members, as it only applies to a government agency and none of the exceptions in Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 1999) apply; and 2) the district court did not err in dismissing the Sherman Act claim as the FFA members are entitled to conduct-based implied antitrust immunity with respect to the anti-competitive action taken pursuant to the Ceiling Provisions of the 2005 Agreement with the IRS.

[03/02] Orosco v. Napolitano
In an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus to compel defendants to issue him a law enforcement certification showing his cooperation with law enforcement under 28 U.S.C. section 2241, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the language of section 1184(p) made it abundantly clear that the decision to issue a law enforcement certification is a discretionary one.

[03/02] Rutti v. Vermillion
In a class action on behalf of all technicians employed by defendant to install alarms in customers' cars, in which plaintiff sought compensation for the time technicians spent commuting to worksites in defendant's vehicles and for time spent on preliminary and postliminary activities performed at their homes, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) pursuant to the Employment Commuter Flexibility Act, use of an employer's vehicle to commute was not compensable even if it was a condition of employment; and 2) the conditions defendant placed on plaintiff's use of its vehicle did not make his commute compensable. However, the judgment is vacated in part where, on summary judgment, the district court could not determine that plaintiff's postliminary activities were not integral to plaintiff's principal activities.

[03/02] Pfizer v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' action against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law claiming that Pfizer marketed the mouthwash in a misleading manner by representing that the use of it can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis, defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn an order certifying the class action is granted as the ruling certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period is overbroad, and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), does not require a different disposition in this case.

More...