Case Summaries
[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.
[02/11]
Comm. for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors
In mandamus proceedings challenging a county's approval of trail developments by Stanford University, arising from the university's application for a permit to add buildings on its campus in 2000, decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed as the filing of a notice of determination (NOD) triggers a 30-day statute of limitations for all CEQA challenges to the decision announced in the notice, and here, the Committee filed its petition more than 30 days after the County reported its approval of the trails agreement in an NOD.
[08/19]
Schweizer v. Bd. of Adjustment of the City of Newark
In an appeal arising out of two decisions by a city's Board of Adjustment involving the eviction of a fraternity from its off-campus fraternity house, as well as the preclusion of the use of the premises as a fraternity, denial of property owners' petitions for review of the decisions is affirmed over meritless claims that: 1) Section 32-51(b) of the Newark Zoning Code constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative authority by the city to the University of Delaware; 2) as a result of the unlawful delegation, owners were denied substantive and procedural due process; 3) Section 32-51(b) requires that a university fraternity be suspended by both the university and its national organization in order for the non-conforming use to be terminated; and 4) owners' lease of the property to a new fraternity within one year preserved their non-conforming use.
More...
[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]
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.
[03/10]
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd.
In an appeal from a district court's order granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoining defendant from proceeding with an arbitration initiated against plaintiff before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the order is affirmed where the "serious questions" standard for assessing a movant's likelihood of success on the merits remains valid in the wake of recent Supreme Court cases, and neither the district court's assessment of the facts nor its application of the law supported a finding of abuse of discretion.
[03/09]
Seltzer v. Barnes
Trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, arising from an underlying suit involving claims against a property management company and homeowners' association, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding plaintiff's two causes of action against defendant do not arise from speech or petitioning activity where his alleged conduct was the negotiation of a settlement in the prior case; and 2) because defendant may not be held liable for the alleged conduct under the litigation privilege, plaintiff has failed to show a probability of prevailing on her causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
[03/04]
New York v. Golden Feather Smoke Shop, Inc.
In defendants' appeal from a preliminary injunction prohibiting the sale of untaxed cigarettes other than to members of the Unkechauge Nation for their personal use, the Second Circuit certifies the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: 1) Does N.Y. Tax Law section 471-e, either by itself or in combination with the provisions of section 471, impose a tax on cigarettes sold on Native American reservations when some or all of those cigarettes may be sold to persons other than members of the reservation's nation or tribe?; 2) If the answer to Question 1 is "no," does N.Y. Tax Law section 471 alone impose a tax on cigarettes sold on Native American reservations when some or all of those cigarettes may be sold to persons other than members of the reservation's nation or tribe?
[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.
[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.
[03/02]
Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. US
In plaintiff's action with the Court of International Trade challenging a determination that the multinational corporation provision, 19 U.S.C. section 1677b(d) (MNC Provision) did not apply to a company with affiliates in China and Vietnam, the court's decision is affirmed as the Department of Commerce acted in accordance with law in concluding that the MNC provision is not applicable when the non-exporting country is a nonmarket economy and normal value is based on a factors-of-production methodology.
[03/02]
Ma v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
In an action against Merrill Lynch based on unauthorized transfers from plaintiff's investment account, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where New York U.C.C. Section 4-A-505, which imposes a one-year statute of repose on certain claims based on electronic funds transfers, bars plaintiffs' common law claims, which had longer limitations periods.
[03/01]
Powershare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc.
In parties' action for breach of a business agreement, a district court's denial of defendant's motion to stay litigation pending arbitration is reversed where: 1) the agreement contains a mandatory arbitration provision; and 2) the standard of review to be employed by a district judge when reviewing a magistrate judge's order on a motion to stay litigation pending the resolution of a parallel arbitration proceeding is under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard elucidated in Rule 72(a).
More...
[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]
TJS of N.Y., Inc. v. Smithtown
In an action seeking an injunction and declaratory judgment to the effect that defendant-town's zoning ordinance did not give plaintiff adequate alternative sites on which to locate its adult entertainment business, a denial of an injunction is vacated where the First Amendment required courts to consider the adequacy of alternative sites available when the ordinance is challenged, not at the time the ordinance is passed.
[03/10]
US v. Ternus
Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to transport in foreign commerce stolen goods valued at $5,000 or more, knowing the goods to have been stolen, is affirmed where: 1) defendant's guilty plea waived all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings against him; and 2) the district court was not required to define "foreign commerce" in order to adequately explain the nature of the charges against him.
[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)
[03/02]
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick
In a class action alleging copyright infringement, a circuit court's ruling vacating a settlement class certification order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed where 17 U.S.C. section 411(a)'s registration requirement is a precondition to filing a copyright infringement claim, but a copyright holder's failure to comply with that requirement does not restrict a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction over infringement claims involving unregistered works.
[03/01]
Media Techs. Licensing, LLC. v. Upper Deck Co.
In a patent infringement suit involving patents related to memorabilia cards, district court's conclusion that the patents are invalid for obviousness is affirmed where: 1) defendants have met the burden of showing that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to attach a sports-related item instead of those items attached in the prior art references; and 2) secondary objective evidence also fails to establish non-obviousness.
[02/25]
Maverick Recording Co. v. Harper
In a copyright infringement action based on unlawful file sharing, partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the uncontroverted evidence was more than sufficient to compel a finding that defendant had downloaded the files; and 2) defendant infringed plaintiffs' exclusive right to reproduce their copyrighted works by downloading the 37 audio files to her computer without authorization. Moreover, the partial denial of summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where lack of legal sophistication could not overcome a properly asserted 17 U.S.C. 402(d) limitation to the innocent infringer defense.
[02/16]
Flanigan's Enters., Inc. v. Fulton County, Ga.
In an First Amendment challenge to an ordinance prohibiting the sale, possession, and consumption of alcohol in adult entertainment establishments, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where the ordinance attempted to insulate the communities surrounding the adult entertainment establishments from the undesirable elements that tended to accompany those businesses, and thus survived intermediate scrutiny.
[02/01]
Peterson v. Grisham
In a defamation action against author John Grisham based on false statements he allegedly made about plaintiffs in a book, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) any connection between defendants' statements and an accusation of criminal activity was far too tenuous for the court to declare them as unprivileged for purposes of Okla. Stat. 1443.1; and 2) because section 1443.1 applied to plaintiffs' libel claims, plaintiffs were also barred under the statute from asserting a valid claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress or false light.
[01/28]
Stewart v. Rolling Stone LLC
In a class action suit brought by "indie rock" musicians whose band names were included in an editorial in a Rolling Stone issue, claiming unauthorized use of their names for a commercial purpose, trial court's denial of defendants' anti-SLAPP motion is reversed and remanded where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding that a triable issue exists as to whether the editorial feature that is the subject of this litigation constitutes commercial speech; and 2) plaintiffs have failed to present evidence sufficient to establish that they have a probability of prevailing on the merits.
More...
|
