Case Summaries
Dispute Resolution & Arbitration
[11/04]
DMA Int'l., Inc. v. Qwest Comms. Int'l., Inc.
In an appeal from the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate an arbitral award, the order is affirmed where the arbitrator's factual findings regarding the meaning of the contract at issue could not be overturned simply because the evidence was conflicting. In addition, attorney's fees are awarded to respondent because petitioner's appeal vexatiously multiplied the proceedings.
[11/04]
Memphis Biofuels, LLC. v. Chicksaw Nation Indus., Inc.
In plaintiff's case against the defendants for repudiating an agreement whereby defendant was to deliver diesel fuel and soybean oil to plaintiff's refinery facility, dismissal of the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed as the defendant, a federally chartered tribal corporation, enjoys tribal-sovereign immunity.
[10/30]
Toal v. Tardif
In plaintiffs' petition for confirmation of an arbitration award against defendants, trial court's grant of plaintiff's petition is reversed as plaintiffs failed to prove a basic prerequisite of private arbitration, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, and the signature of defendants' attorney on the arbitration stipulation, standing alone, did not constitute substantial evidence that defendants agreed to arbitrate the dispute.
[10/29]
Johnson v. Greenelsh
In proceedings involving an arbitration petition by one co-trustee of a family trust and plaintiff-co-trustee's petition to enforce a no contest clause, appellate court's judgment against defendant-co-trustee is reversed as a challenge to a surviving spouse's mental capacity to transfer trust assets and appoint a successor trustee did not violate the no contest clause in a family trust. A proceeding contesting a settlor's mental competence to exercise rights under a trust does not amount to an attack on the trust itself, unless it seeks to thwart the estate plan established by the trust.
[10/28]
Laster v. AT&T Mobility LLC
In a class action claiming that a telephone company's offer of a "free" phone to anyone who signed up for its service was fraudulent to the extent the phone company charged the new subscriber sales tax on the retail value of each "free" phone, denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where an arbitration clause's "premium" payment in the event of an arbitral award in favor of a customer did not prevent the clause from being unenforceable under California law.
[10/20]
Joan Hansen & Co. v. Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters Corp.
In an action seeking an order of contempt for violation of a confirmed arbitral award, the appellate division's denial of defendant's motion to stay plaintiff's motion to reopen the arbitration is reversed where, after issuance of an arbitration award, a party may not seek to reopen the arbitration proceeding to request that the arbitrators consider an issue that was not previously presented to the panel.
[10/20]
Burlage v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' dispute over the sale of a house purchased from defendant, trial court's decision to vacate the arbitrator's award in favor of the plaintiffs is affirmed and plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandate denied as the arbitrator excluded material evidence that substantially prejudiced defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2
[10/15]
Century Indem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London
District court's orders granting defendant-Lloyd's motion to compel arbitration of a disputed claim based on a set of reinsurance-of-reinsurance agreements and denying plaintiff-Century's motion to vacate an arbitration panel's subsequent award in favor of Lloyd's is affirmed where: 1) district court properly compelled arbitration of the dispute arising from the retrocessional agreements over Lloyd's failure to pay declaratory judgment expenses that Century had paid to its reinsured under reinsurance treaties; and 2) the district court properly denied Century's motion to vacate the arbitration award under 9. U.S.C. section 10(a)(3) as the arbitrators' decision to exclude evidence plaintiff proffered based on the evidence's irrelevance was well within their authority in conducting the arbitration.
[10/15]
Seidemann v. Bowen
In a First Amendment action alleging that a professor's union impermissibly charged plaintiff a pro rata share of expenses unrelated to the union's collective bargaining duties, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) a public-sector union's political activities aimed at securing a new contract may be chargeable to nonmembers if those activities are pertinent to the union's role as a collective bargaining representative; 2) nonmembers may be required to subsidize lobbying efforts undertaken by a "parent" union of the local public-sector union if the lobbying is related to collective bargaining and may ultimately inure to the benefit of local union members; 3) the district court erred in upholding the union's charges to nonmembers for (a) political activity undertaken to secure a new contract, (b) lobbying by the local union's state affiliate, (c) costs incurred to send union delegates to the state affiliate's annual convention, and (d) the salaries of the union's employees; 4) the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's challenge to the union's charges for media communications by its national affiliate; and 5) it erred in holding, sua sponte, that plaintiff will be required to arbitrate future claims against the union before filing suit.
[10/08]
Telenor Mobile Comms. AS v. Storm LLC
In an appeal from the district court's order confirming a final arbitral award in favor of petitioner and denying respondent's cross-motion to vacate, the order is affirmed where: 1) the arbitration panel did not manifestly disregard the law either by failing to give preclusive effect to Ukrainian court judgments that the parties' dispute was not arbitrable because respondent's agent lacked authority to execute the agreement giving rise to the dispute, or by failing to require a trial to determine the agreement's arbitrability; and 2) the agreement was arbitrable as a matter of law because the respondent's agent had the apparent authority to execute it.
More...
Injury & Tort Law
[11/06]
Sell v. US Dep't. of Justice
In an action alleging that plaintiff was the victim of medical malpractice that occurred while he was in federal custody awaiting trial, dismissal of the action on statute of limitations grounds is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's mental illness did not prevent him from discovering the alleged injury; and 2) the continuous treatment doctrine did not toll the statute.
[11/02]
Robinson v. US
In an action against the U.S. for encroachment onto plaintiffs' easement, the dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Quiet Title Act is vacated where the district court needed to determine whether plaintiffs could assert jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
[11/02]
In re: Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig.
In a product liability action against hormone therapy manufacturers, partial judgment for plaintiff and for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff's Arkansas law claims were not preempted because there was no evidence that the FDA would not have permitted the strengthening of the labels of the drugs at issue in a manner consistent with Arkansas law; 2) plaintiff's expert testimony on causation was properly admitted because the expert ruled out other possible causes of plaintiff's disease; 3) the district court's instruction on proximate cause was correct; and 4) judgment for defendants on punitive damages was correct because defendants did not act with recklessness or malice.
[10/30]
Groover v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
In a wrongful death action based on a construction accident, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiff's remedy was limited to workers' compensation under Louisiana law.
[10/30]
Lake Almanor Assoc., LLP. v. Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc.
In plaintiff-developer's breach of contract and negligence case against a consultant hired by a county to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), district court's sustaining of defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint is affirmed as the balance of the factors militates against a conclusion that a consultant owes a duty of care to a project applicant in the timely completion of a draft EIR.
[10/29]
Adair v. Lease Partners, Inc.
In an appeal from an order remanding the case to state court in an action in which the FDIC had been a party but was subsequently dismissed, the order is reversed where the district court had no authority to remand the case because 12 U.S.C. section 1819(b)(2) continued to provide original jurisdiction over all claims in the case, even after the FDIC's dismissal.
[10/29]
Villafranca v. US
In a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) action against the U.S. alleging that federal agents used excessive force against plaintiff, judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) because agents' actions were privileged under Texas law, those actions did not constitute an assault for which the U.S. would be liable under the FTCA; and 2) the district court's finding that the agents' alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries was not clearly erroneous.
[10/29]
Guillemaro-Ginorio v. Contreras-Gomez
In plaintiffs' case against the Office of the Insurance Commissioner of Puerto Rico and two consecutive Insurance Commissioners claiming that they were investigated and sanctioned for Insurance Code violations solely because of their political affiliations, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $4.7 million and a permanent injunction is affirmed as all of defendants' grounds for relief are without merit.
[10/29]
Kerns v. US
In plaintiff's lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that the government's employee negligently caused an automobile accident killing her husband, dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is vacated and remanded as, when the scope-of-employment issue is determinative of both jurisdiction and the underlying merits of an FTCA claim, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is inappropriate.
[10/28]
Guzman v. County of Monterey
In plaintiffs' case against a county and the owner and operator of their mobile home park for fluoride contamination in the water, trial court's grant of county's demurrer to the third cause of action is vacated and reversed as California Code of Regulations section 64256(e) imposes upon the county the express mandatory duty to undertake a monthly review of all water quality monitoring data submitted to it in order to detect deviations from specific water quality standards. Furthermore, this duty was designed to protect water consumers like plaintiffs from the type of harm they claim to have suffered.
More...
Workers' Comp
[11/04]
Liberty Mut. ins. Co. v. Hurlbut
In a constitutional challenge to two amendments to the New York Workers' Compensation Law, the district court's judgment abstaining from the case is affirmed where Burford abstention was appropriate because federal court intervention would be disruptive of a carefully established state system, and might also yield inconsistent and therefore conflicting results.
[10/30]
Groover v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
In a wrongful death action based on a construction accident, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiff's remedy was limited to workers' compensation under Louisiana law.
[10/29]
Green-Brown v. Sealand Servs. Inc.
Plaintiff's petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board of the US Department of Labor, affirming an ALJ's decision that awarded hearing loss compensation to plaintiff under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) based on an audiogram that did not comply with the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), is granted and reversed because section 908(c)(13)(E) of the LHWCA mandates that hearing loss compensation be based on hearing loss determinations made in accordance with the AMA Guides.
[10/13]
Esquivel v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd.
A ruling reversing a workers' compensation judge's findings and awards in favor of claimant is affirmed where the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board did not err in concluding that claimant's new injuries are not compensable under the Worker's Compensation Act because they clearly occurred outside the reasonable geographic area of her employer's compensability risk.
[10/01]
Pedroza v. Benefits Rev. Bd.
In a petition for review of the Benefits Review Board's determination that petitioner was not entitled to disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act, the petition is denied where psychological injuries that result from legitimate personnel actions are not compensable under the Act.
[09/09]
Williams v. Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs Ins. Serv.
In a negligence action against an insurance agency for failing to include workers compensation in the insurance package arising from a multimillion dollar judgment against plaintiff for injuries suffered by employee in a catastrophic fire, trial court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the evidence amply supported the court's finding that defendant's employee failed to use the skill and care a reasonably careful insurance professional would have used in similar circumstances; 2) the action is not barred by the statute of limitations; and 3) the trial court did not err in refusing to assign fault to the plaintiff.
[08/26]
Beverly Hilton Hotel v. Wkrs.' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a petition for review of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's order requiring petitioner to pay vocational rehabilitation benefits to respondent, the petition is granted where the Board's decision was not a final determination of respondent's right to vocational rehabilitation benefits and because Cal. Lab. Code section 139.5 had been repealed.
[08/21]
Baur v. Wkrs.' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a petition for review of a worker's compensation judge's order granting petitioner's employer a credit against future worker's compensation payments resulting from petitioner's injuries, the petition is denied where payments from the California Insurance Guarantee Association counted toward such a credit.
[08/18]
Pueschel v. Peters
In an action alleging interference with plaintiff's application for workers' compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff waived her Title VII claim by appealing her claim before the Merit Systems Protection Board to the Federal Circuit; and 2) plaintiff could not be subjected to a hostile work environment where all of the alleged conduct occurred after she left the workplace.
[06/11]
Simpson v. Empire Truck Lines, Inc.
In an action arising out of a truck accident under the Texas Workers Compensation Act (TWCA), judgment for Defendant is affirmed where the driver of the truck was not Defendant's statutory employee under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, and thus Defendant was not vicariously liable under the TWCA.
More...
|
