News & Resources

Case Summaries

[06/25] Deutscher Tennis Bund GMBH v. ATP Tour, Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against the ATP Tour, an organizer of worldwide men's professional tennis circuit, claiming that the ATP Tour's reorganization to revitalize its popularity violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and constituted a breach of the directors' fiduciary duties, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) the jury verdict on the Sherman Act section 1 claim is affirmed as the plaintiffs failed to prove the relevant market; and 2) district court's judgment as a matter of law dismissing the breach of duty of loyalty claim against a director is affirmed as neither he individually, nor the ATP Board of Directors as a whole, were materially self-interested when they voted in favor of the reorganization plan.

[06/24] Olmstead v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
An order to partially satisfy a judgment against defendant in the FTC's suit for unfair or deceptive trade practices is affirmed as Florida law permits a court to order a judgment debtor to surrender all right, title, and interest in the debtor's single-member limited liability company to satisfy an outstanding judgment.

[06/24] DDJ Mgmt., LLC v. Rhone Group L.L.C.
In an action claiming that defendants presented plaintiffs with corporate financial statements that were false and misleading, the appellate division's modification of the trial court's order dismissing plaintiffs' fraud claim is reversed where: 1) when a plaintiff has taken reasonable steps to protect itself against deception, it should not be denied recovery merely because hindsight suggested that it might have been possible to detect the fraud when it occurred; and 2) plaintiffs in this action for fraud have alleged facts from which a jury could find that they were justified in relying on the representations defendants made to them.

[06/24] Black v. US
The Seventh Circuit's affirmance of defendants' honest-services mail fraud convictions is vacated where: 1) per the ruling today in Skilling v. US, the honest-services component of the federal mail-fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. section 1346, criminalizes only schemes to defraud that involved bribes or kickbacks, and that holding renders the honest-services instructions given in this case incorrect; and 2) by properly objecting to the honest-services jury instructions at trial, defendants secured their right to challenge those instructions on appeal, and they did not forfeit that right by declining to acquiesce in the government-proposed special-verdict forms.

[06/24] Skilling v. US
The Fifth Circuit's affirmance of former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling's honest-services fraud conviction is affirmed in part where pretrial publicity and community prejudice did not prevent Skilling from obtaining a fair trial, and he did not establish that a presumption of juror prejudice arose or that actual bias infected the jury that tried him. However, the judgment is vacated in part where 18 U.S.C. section 1346, which proscribes fraudulent deprivations of "the intangible right of honest services," was properly confined to cover only bribery and kickback schemes, and Skilling's alleged misconduct entailed no bribe or kickback.

[06/24] Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd.
In a securities fraud action by Australian citizens claiming that defendant corporation and its officers manipulated financial models to make the company's mortgage-servicing rights appear more valuable than they really were, the Second Circuit's affirmance of the dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the Second Circuit erred in considering Securities and Exchange Act section 10(b)'s extraterritorial reach to raise a question of subject-matter jurisdiction, thus allowing dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); and 2) section 10(b) does not provide a cause of action to foreign plaintiffs suing foreign and American defendants for misconduct in connection with securities traded on foreign exchanges.

[06/22] Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Solutions, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit brought under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), on behalf of himself and similarly situated persons who entered into copy rental agreements with defendant and who were overcharged for copies, trial court's judgment sustaining defendant's general demurrer without leave to amend is affirmed as plaintiff's UCL cause of action accrued more than four years before he filed his action, and the continuing violation doctrine does not apply to the circumstances of this case.

[06/21] Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. Mariners Mile Gateway, LLC
In a tenant's suit against the landlord over a lease for new commercial property, trial court's grant of defendant's motion for nonsuit and expert witness fees is affirmed where: 1) trial court's decision granting the nonsuit was proper as a matter of law; and 2) trial court did not err by allowing defendant to recover its expert witness fees pursuant to the lease.

More...

[06/25] Kemp v. Holder
In an action for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act arising from the termination of plaintiff's employment as a federal court security officer, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he had a "disability," as that term is defined under the ADA.

[06/25] Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
In plaintiff's suit for employment discrimination based on race and retaliation, district court's grant of defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed where, for substantially the same reasons as the court indicated below, the record reveals no significant evidentiary basis for the verdict.

[06/25] Murthy v. Vilsack
In an action by an ex-employee against the Secretary of Agriculture for breach of the terms of a settlement agreement and for non-selection to a GS-15 position in violation of Title VII, an order partially transferring the action and partially granting summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the filing of an amended complaint after the 180-day waiting period expired could not cure the failure to exhaust; and 2) res judicata would not bar the filing of a new Title VII non-selection civil action after he exhausted his EEOC remedies.

[06/25] Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr.
In plaintiff's Title VII suit against her former employer for being fired in retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment by residents of defendant's nursing home, district court's denial of defendant's motions for a new trial and remittitur are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff presented enough evidence to persuade a reasonable jury that her complaints caused defendant to fire her; 2) it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for a new trial on the basis of plaintiff's counsel's closing arguments; 3) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the compensatory damages as enough evidence supported a jury award of $25,000, which is well within the $200,000 cap set out in 42 U.S.C. section 1981a(b)(3)(C); and 4) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the punitive damage award and the logic of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008) does not apply to this Title VII case.

[06/25] Ruiz v. Cty. of Rockland
In an action against a county for national origin and race discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court erred in finding that plaintiff was not qualified for his position based on evidence of plaintiff's misconduct; but 2) plaintiff failed to raise an inference of discrimination.

[06/24] Bifulco v. Patient Bus. & Fin. Serv., Inc.
In plaintiff's wrongful termination suit against her former employer, Fifth District's reversal of trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as workers' compensation retaliation claims brought against the state under section 440.205 are not subject to the presuit notice requirements of section 768.28(6)

[06/24] Edwards v. A.H. Cornell & Son, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her employers and supervisors, claiming that she was terminated in violation of section 510 of ERISA and state common law after complaining to management about alleged ERISA violations, district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss is affirmed as unsolicited internal complaints are not protected activities under the anti-retaliation provision of section 510 of ERISA.

[06/24] Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assoc. Inc.
In a suit brought by about 4000 current and former employees against an employer, claiming that the company, which provides security guard services throughout Southern California, denied meal and rest breaks and failed to pay for overtime, trial court's denial of their motion for class certification is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) order denying the motion for class certification as to the meal break class and the rest break class is affirmed as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding common issues of law and fact did not predominate over individual issues; and 2) order denying the motion for class certification as to the overtime-pay class is reversed and remanded.

More...