Case Summaries
[06/28]
Christian Legal Soc'y v. Martinez
In an action against Hastings College of Law, a public law school, alleging that Hastings' refusal to grant a Christian group "Registered Student Organization" status violated its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion, the Ninth Circuit's affirmance of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the Court considered only whether a public institution's conditioning access to a student organization forum on compliance with an all-comers policy violated the Constitution; and 2) the all-comers policy was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the RSO forum.
[06/24]
Kaur v. N.Y. State Urb. Dev. Corp.
In a petition for review of the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) taking of plaintiffs' property by eminent domain for the purposes of constructing a new Columbia University campus, a denial of the petition is affirmed where the condemnation of petitioners' property qualified as a "land use improvement project" was rationally based and entitled to deference.
[06/23]
Jones v. Nat'l. Am. Univ.
In an action alleging that a university failed to promote plaintiff in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that certain witnesses' testimony was sufficient authentication to admit an exhibit; 2) plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that defendant's proffered reason for the failure to promote was a pretext for age discrimination; and 3) the district court properly instructed the jury on plaintiff's burden under her ADEA claim, including her burden to prove that defendant's proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the failure to promote was pretext for age discrimination.
[06/22]
Zakrzewska v. The New School
In a sexual harassment action, following the New York Court of Appeals' answer to a certified question, a denial of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where the affirmative defense to employer liability articulated in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), does not apply to sexual harassment and retaliation claims under section 8-107 of the New York City Administrative Code.
[06/18]
Vereecke v. Huron Valley Sch. Dist.
In a high school English teacher's suit against a school district and individuals for First Amendment retaliation, claiming that certain disciplinary actions were taken against him for initiating a lawsuit against another teacher on behalf of his daughter for harassment, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has not presented evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact in support of causation element of his section 1983 claim against the individual defendants; and 2) because the individual defendants did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights under the First Amendment, he cannot rely on their conduct to establish a claim of municipal liability.
[06/14]
Blair v. Bethel Sch. Dist.
In an action alleging that plaintiff's First Amendment rights were violated when his fellow school board members voted to remove him as their vice president because of his relentless criticism of the school district's superintendent, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the board's action did not prevent plaintiff from continuing to speak out, vote his conscience, and serve his constituents as a member of the board.
[06/11]
Univ. of Houston v. Barth
In a tenured professor's suit against the University of Houston under the Whistleblower Act claiming retaliation for reporting contracting and accounting irregularities to University officials, the court of appeals' judgment is reversed and remanded to determine whether, under the analysis set forth in State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009), plaintiff's claims meet the Whistleblower Act's jurisdictional elements for suit against a governmental entity, and thus, whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the suit.
[06/10]
Brandy B. v. Eden Central Sch. Dist.
In an action against defendants Eden Central School District and Child and Family Services of Erie County (CFS) for damages resulting from an alleged sexual assault committed by an 11-year-old student upon a five-year-old student, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the alleged sexual assault was an unforeseeable act that, without sufficiently specific knowledge or notice, could not have been reasonably anticipated by the school district.
[06/09]
Am. Nurses Ass'n v. O'Connell
In an action against the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the California Department of Education (CDE) challenging a portion of a legal advisory regarding the rights of students with disabilities in K-12 public schools, arising from a 2005 class action settlement, trial court's judgment and peremptory writ of mandate issued are affirmed as California law does not allow designated voluntary school personnel, who are not licensed nurses, to administer insulin to diabetic students who require the injections under a section 504 Plan or Individualized Education Program.
[05/28]
R.H. v. Plano Indep. Unified Sch. Dist.
In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's denial of tuition reimbursement for private preschooling under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the order is affirmed where: 1) the school district discussed the potential harmful effects of plaintiff's placement in a special educational environment; 2) defendant considered whether plaintiff's Individualized Education Plan (IEP) could be satisfactorily implemented in a regular classroom; and 3) the lack of extended school year services was part and parcel of plaintiff's IEP, and he was thus required to give notice to defendant of his intent to reject the terms of his existing IEP.
More...
[06/28]
Bilski v. Kappos
In a patent application seeking protection for a claimed invention explaining how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market could protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. section 101; 2) Section 101 precluded a reading of the term "process" that would categorically exclude business methods; and 3) even though petitioners' application was not categorically outside of section 101 under the two atextual approaches the Court rejected today, that did not mean it was a "process" under section 101.
[06/25]
Rathborne Land Co. v. Ascent Engy., Inc.
In an action for breach of defendant's obligations to reasonably develop and explore a leased parcel of oil, gas, and mineral land, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff's letter to defendant met the La. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 31:136 demand requirement; and 2) district court did not clearly err in concluding that plaintiff would have been able to lease the disputed acreage more than once if it had been able to seismically survey the parcel prior to 2006. However, the judgment is vacated in part where neither the district court nor plaintiff could show an adequate ground -- indeed, any relevant precedent -- for awarding consequential damages for lost leasing and seismic revenues on the entire parcel.
[06/25]
Bagby Elevator Co. v. Schindler Elevator Corp.
In an action for tortious interference with contract, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) under the court's highly deferential standard of review, there was no reversible error in the district court's decision to use the pattern jury instruction; 2) there was sufficient evidence of both malice and gross negligence to support an award of exemplary damages; and 3) there was ample evidence of causation to support the verdict.
[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.
[06/23]
Rectrix Aerodrome Ctrs., Inc. v. Barnstable Mun. Airport Comm'n
In plaintiff's suit against an airport commission and individual defendants, claiming that it was prevented from competing with defendant in the sale of jet fuel, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's fraud claim fails as plaintiff was a commercial tenant of the airport and, given the self-service standards and lease terms, had no right and no reasonable expectation of being able to sell jet fuel at the airport; 2) the antitrust claim is barred by the state action doctrine given the Massachusetts statute; and 3) plaintiff's equal protection claim under section 1983 fails as no private entity at the airport has the privilege sought by plaintiff.
[06/22]
Export-Import Bank of the U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co.
In an action to collect a $144 million judgment against defendants pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA), the district court's order quashing plaintiff's writs of garnishment is affirmed where an electronic funds transfer (EFT) temporarily in the possession of an intermediary bank in New York may not be garnished under the FDCPA to satisfy judgment debts owed by the originator or intended beneficiary of that EFT.
[06/21]
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp.
In an action based on the alleged destruction of goods being shipped, the Ninth Circuit's reversal of the district court's dismissal of the action based on the fact that the parties' contract designated a Tokyo court as the venue for any dispute is reversed where, because the Carmack Amendment does not apply to a shipment originating overseas under a single through bill of lading, the parties' agreement to litigate these cases in Tokyo is binding.
[06/21]
Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp.
In plaintiff's class action suit under section 17529.5(a)(2), which makes it unlawful to advertise in a commercial e-mail advertisement (i.e. spam) that "contains or is accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information," dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim is affirmed as sending commercial e-mail advertisements from multiple domain names for the purpose of bypassing spam filters is not unlawful under section 17529.5(a)(2).
[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.
[06/17]
Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC
In a suit brought by fishermen against a defendant for negligently spilling pollutants and hazardous contaminants into a pond, the judgment of the Second District is quashed as commercial fishermen have both a statutory and common law cause of action for economic losses proximately caused by the negligent release of pollutants despite the fact that the fishermen do not own any property damages by the pollution.
More...
[06/25]
Flava Works, Inc. v. City of Miami
In an action challenging the Miami Code Enforcement Board's final administrative ruling that plaintiffs were engaged in "adult entertainment" in an inappropriate zone and "illegally operating a business in a residential zone," judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where the activities taking place at the residence at issue were a clear violation of the prohibition against operating a business in a residential zone.
[06/22]
Recording Indus. Assn. of Am. v. Library of Cong.
In the Recording Industry Association of America's petition for review of the Copyright Royalty Board's decision instituting a 1.5 percent per month late fee for late royalty payments, and implementing a penny-rate royalty structure for cell phone ringtones (under which copyright owners received 24 cents for every ringtone sold using their copyrighted work), the petition is denied where: 1) the Board appropriately took market evidence into account when imposing a late fee; 2) a copyright owner's ability to terminate a section 115 license in no way barred the imposition of a late fee; and 3) even if it were true that divided interests in a copyright made it difficult to make timely payments to each copyright owner, that fact would in no way counsel against the imposition of a late fee.
[06/09]
Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc.
In an action alleging copyright infringement under federal law and breach of contract under California law based on defendants' alleged misappropriation of plaintiffs' screenplay, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where, even if defendants had access to the screenplay, plaintiffs did not show sufficient similarity between the screenplay and the film (The Last Samurai) to maintain an infringement claim under federal copyright law. However, the judgment is reversed in part where novelty was not required for an implied-in-fact contract claim arising out of unauthorized use.
[06/07]
Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Dist. Corp.
In plaintiff's counsel's appeal from an order by the district court sanctioning him for his five-year bad faith pursuit of a frivolous copyright infringement claim, the order is affirmed where: 1) had counsel, a self-described experienced copyright lawyer, made even a cursory investigation into the circumstances of plaintiff's 21-year old composition, he would have known plaintiff had no copyright interest in music he composed for hire; 2) counsel's repeated misrepresentations of Indian copyright law clearly evidenced his recklessness and bad faith; and 3) the district court carefully excluded inadequately documented costs, as well as taxable costs not included in defendants' bill of costs.
[06/03]
Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc.
In an action for copyright infringement and related state claims based on defendants' use of plaintiffs' materials in developing a television show involving a team of "paranormal investigators" called "Ghost Hunters", dismissal of plaintiffs' state-law claims is affirmed where: 1) the Copyright Act preempted plaintiffs' implied contract claim because the rights asserted by the plaintiffs under the implied contract were equivalent to the rights of copyright owners under 17 U.S.C. section 106 -- namely, the exclusive rights to use and to authorize use of their work; and 2) defendants' alleged breach of confidence stemmed from an alleged violation of the very rights contained in section 106.
[05/25]
Ladd v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (Warner), claiming that Warner's practice of allocating the same share of the licensing fee to every movie in a package regardless of its value to the licensee deprived plaintiff of a fair allocation of the licensing fees to which plaintiff was entitled as a profit participant, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where: 1) the record supports the jury's determination that Warner's straight-lining method of allocating licensing fees to profit participants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and 2) Warner failed to meet its burden at trial to show what portion, if any, of plaintiff's damages may have been barred by the 1996 settlement agreement or by the August 1, 1999 accrual of the four-year statute of limitations, and as such, entitling plaintiff to recover all of his proved damages.
[05/13]
DirecTV, Inc. v. Barczewski
In DirecTV's suit against defendants for intercepting encrypted signals from DirecTV's satellite system without authorization and for furnishing devices to assist others to steal the signals, the judgment of the district court is affirmed except with respect to the award of damages against the defendant charged with intercepting DirecTV's signal, which is vacated as, the portion of Rodgers v. Wood, 910 F.2d 444 (7th Cir. 1990), holding that award of the maximum damages specified in section 2520(c)(2) is mandatory is overruled as the district court has discretion not to award statutory damages under the statutory formula.
[04/30]
Arizona v. Harkins Amusement Enters.
In an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action claiming discriminatory accommodations at defendant's movie theaters, dismissal of the action is reversed where the district court was correct in holding that the ADA does not require Harkins to utilize open captioning as a matter of law, but closed captioning and audio descriptions were "auxiliary aids and services" that a movie theater may be required to provide under the ADA.
[04/29]
Arista Records LLC v. Doe 3
In Doe defendant's appeal from a denial of their motion to quash a subpoena served on an Internet service provider seeking the identities of people who illegally downloaded music, the order is affirmed where: 1) the motion to quash the subpoena was not dispositive of the underlying action; 2) to the extent that anonymity is used to mask copyright infringement or to facilitate such infringement by other persons, it is unprotected by the First Amendment; and 3) defendant's expectation of privacy for sharing copyrighted music through an online file-sharing network was simply insufficient to permit him to avoid having to defend against a claim of copyright infringement.
[04/27]
Bryant v. Media Right Prods., Inc.
In a copyright infringement action based on the copying and sale of plaintiffs' music albums without authorization, judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly awarded statutory damages for each album infringed; 2) the district court did not commit clear error in finding that plaintiffs had failed to prove willfulness and that defendant had proven its innocence; and 3) the district court did not err in calculating damages.
More...
|
