Case Summaries
[07/15]
In re: US Med., Inc.
In a bankruptcy proceeding, a ruling finding that defendant-creditor was not a "non-statutory insider" of debtor for purposes of 11 U.S.C. section 547(b)(4)(B) is affirmed where: 1) the bankruptcy court did not make any findings that the transactions between creditor and debtor were not at arm's length, or that there was undue influence or control by creditor; and 2) thus it erred in holding creditor to be a non-statutory insider of debtor. A creditor may only be a non-statutory insider of a debtor when the creditor's transaction of business with the debtor is not at arm's length; a bankruptcy court, however, may find a statutory insider without this requirement.
[07/15]
Nationwide Asset Servs., Inc. v. DuFauchard
In a petition for mandamus relief from an administrative decision prohibiting plaintiffs from acting as proraters, denial of relief by the trial court is affirmed where: 1) the factual records supported a conclusion that plaintiffs constructively receive their customers' funds; 2) the statute applies to constructive receipt of funds; and 3) the statute is not void for vagueness with respect to the actions it seeks to regulate since it is not unanticipated that exercising control through a third party over funds, to which a customer has only limited access to, will result in imputed possession of the funds.
[07/10]
In Re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig.
In a series of cases arising from the Enron collapse, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act is affirmed where: 1) the district court had bankruptcy jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims at the time it issued its decision dismissing the claims with prejudice; and 2) the cases fell within the definition of a "covered class action" and SLUSA preempts the claims.
[07/10]
Brazil Quality Stones, Inc. v. Chertoff
In an action arising from the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) denial of a small corporation's petition to extend the visa of its Brazilian President and CEO, a ruling in favor of the agency is affirmed where the USCIS did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition based on a finding that the CEO was not acting in a managerial capacity at the time of the petition.
[07/02]
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
In a republished opinion, a petition for review of an order of the FTC requiring petitioner to divest assets acquired from a Pennsylvania company since they would likely result in a substantial lessening of competition or tend to create a monopoly is denied where: 1) the FTC correctly applied the legal standards of burdens of proof and persuasion; 2) the FTC properly analyzed the "potential entry" defense and had substantial evidence to conclude that "potential entry" evidence was insufficient to rebut the prima facie case; 3) substantial evidence supported its factual findings; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in the issuance of its remedy provisions. (Substituted opinion)
[06/25]
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
In an action brought against Exxon for economic losses resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, a circuit court ruling remitting the punitive damages award to $2.5 billion is vacated and remanded for further reduction where: 1) the Court was equally divided on the question of whether a shipowner may be liable for punitive damages without acquiescence in the actions causing harm, and thus the circuit court's opinion is undisturbed on the issue; 2) federal statutory law does not bar a punitive award on top of damages for economic loss; but 3) the award in this case should be limited to an amount equal to compensatory damages, or approximately $500 million.
[05/30]
In re: NVE Corp. Sec. Litig
In a putative securities class action alleging that a corporation and certain of its directors and officers had made false and misleading statements concerning the development of a novel computer memory technology, judgment denying plaintiffs' request for another amendment to their complaint and granting a defense motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in finding that plaintiffs' complaint did not satisfy the applicable pleading requirements for securities actions; and 2) plaintiffs did not articulate any proposed changes to their complaint, nor did they show how revision rectify their pleading deficiencies.
[05/29]
Coury v. Moss
In an interlocutory appeal in a shareholder derivative action, partial summary judgment for plaintiff holding that he had not sold or transferred his stock to anyone in violation of defendant's right of first refusal is affirmed where the transaction between plaintiff and a third party was merely an exchange and not a sale as defined by law where the plaintiff received a release or discharge of the bankruptcy estate's interest or advance claim on the stock in exchange of an assignment of future profits.
More...
[/]
Totes Isotoner Corp. v. Int'l Chem. Workers Union
In a labor dispute, a supplemental labor arbitration award was properly vacated where the arbitrator: 1) was not arguably construing a contract when granting the supplemental award on the basis of the original award; and 2) acted outside of his authority by reaching a question not presented to him by the parties.
[07/18]
Evans v. Akers
Former employees who allege that fiduciary breaches reduced their lump-sum distribution from a defined contribution plan have standing to sue as "participants" under the ERISA statute.
[07/18]
Adams v. Rice
In a suit brought under the Rehabilitation Act after plaintiff passed her civil service examination but was disqualified because she had been diagnosed with breast cancer, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) sexual relations qualify as a major life activity under the Act; 2) plaintiff's breast cancer qualifies as a disability because it amounted to a physical impairment that substantially limited her in a major life activity; 3) the court rejects an argument that an employer cannot be held liable unless it knows not only about the history of impairment, but also how that impairment substantially limited a major life activity.
[07/18]
Salmon Run Shopping Ctr. LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
An NLRB order requiring a shopping mall operator to allow a union to distribute literature on mall premises is vacated where the mall operator did not improperly discriminate against the union under section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
[07/17]
Tommasetti v. Astrue
Denial of claimant's application for Social Security benefits based on a claim that he was unable to work because of lower back pain and diabetes is affirmed where: 1) an ALJ provided "clear and convincing" reasons for rejecting claimant's testimony as not credible; 2) the ALJ provided "specific and legitimate" reasons based on substantial evidence for her partial rejection of a treating physician's opinion; and 3) although the ALJ erred in finding that claimant could perform past work, the error was harmless since it was properly found that he could perform other work in the economy.
[07/16]
Hayward v. US Dep't of Labor
In an administrative proceeding to determine survivor benefits under the Energy Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, denial of benefits is affirmed where: 1) the risk model used to calculate the probability of causation for all types of prostate cancer accounted for the rarity of sarcomatoid carcinoma; and 2) defendant correctly concluded that evidence submitted by plaintiff was inapplicable to her husband's case.
[07/16]
Carmona v. Southwest Airlines Co.
In a suit alleging sexual discrimination, disability discrimination, and failure to accommodate, dismissal of plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed and the case remanded where: 1) the allegations did not require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and therefore did not constitute minor disputes under the Railway Labor Act; and 2) federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims that do not require interpretation of the CBA.
[07/16]
Baker v. Canadian Nat'l/Illinois Central R.R.
In a personal injury suit arising from a train collision, judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff was the proximate cause of the accident and was not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law; 2) Roadway Worker Protection Rules did not apply since the jobsite was too far away to have the potential to foul the track; 3) the court did not err in its jury instruction; 4) the jury's findings were not against the weight of the evidence; and 5) evidentiary rulings were within the discretion of the trial court or were only harmless error.
More...
Frequently Asked Questions
|
|
