Case Summaries
Dispute Resolution & Arbitration
[05/05]
Perry Homes v. Cull
In an action arising after plaintiffs' home suffered serious structural and drainage problems, an arbitration award in favor of plaintiffs is vacated and remanded where: 1) the issue of waiver of arbitration by litigation conduct is an issue to be decided by courts; 2) waiver must be decided on a case-by-case basis, courts should look to the totality of the circumstances, and such waiver requires a showing of prejudice; and 3) plaintiffs waived arbitration and defendants were prejudiced, in this case.
[05/02]
Wabtec Corp. v. Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB
In a licensing agreement dispute involving arbitration issues, appeal from a denial of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction and expedited discovery is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the district court's order was not an appealable interlocutory under the collateral order doctrine or the Federal Arbitration Act.
[04/30]
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP v. Koch
An arbitration award need not be vacated on grounds that the arbitrator refused to disqualify him or herself after receiving a timely notice of disqualification, when the notice was based on the disclosure of information the arbitrator was not required to disclose but nonetheless revealed out of an abundance of caution.
[04/25]
Casden Park La Brea Retail LLC v. v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc.
A neutral arbitrator who has no pecuniary interest in profits generated by his employer's business relationship with a party or a party's representative has no substantial business relationship with the party or its representative and, therefore, no duty to disclose such transactions.
[04/25]
Ross v. Bank of America, N.A.
In an appeal involving whether mandatory arbitration clauses found in credit card contracts issued by defendants, assuming they were products of illegal collusion among credit providers, give rise to Article III standing, dismissal of plaintiffs-cardholders' antitrust suit is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court erroneously held that plaintiff-cardholders failed to allege an "injury in fact" sufficient to confer Article III standing; and 2) plaintiffs' claims were ripe for adjudication.
[04/24]
Loeb v. Record
In a fee dispute between a law firm and its client wherein the client appealed an arbitration award in favor of the law firm, an order enforcing the arbitration award is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the superior court correctly denied the client's motion in opposition to the law firm's lien, as the client failed to follow the proper procedure for preventing an arbitration award from becoming binding; but 2) because the law firm failed to follow the correct procedures for enforcing an arbitration award, the superior court erred in granting the law firm's motion and directing the clerk of court to deliver funds to it.
[04/24]
Loeb v. Record
In a fee dispute between a law firm and its client wherein the client appealed an arbitration award in favor of the law firm, an order enforcing the arbitration award is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the superior court correctly denied the client's motion in opposition to the law firm's lien, as the client failed to follow the proper procedure for preventing an arbitration award from becoming binding; but 2) because the law firm failed to follow the correct procedures for enforcing an arbitration award, the superior court erred in granting the law firm's motion and directing the clerk of court to deliver funds to it.
[04/24]
Ramos-Santiago v. UPS
In proceedings arising from the termination of a UPS driver due to his failure to deliver 37 packages over two business days, wherein the dispute was submitted to arbitration pursuant to a controlling collective-bargaining agreement (CBA), an arbitration award in favor of UPS is upheld where, in finding the termination justified under the terms of the CBA: 1) the arbitrator did not act in manifest disregard of the law; 2) her opinion was supported in reason and fact; and 3) her decision was not based on faulty reasoning or a crucial assumption which was concededly a non-fact.
[04/23]
Rodriguez v. Blue Cross of California
Denial of a petition to compel arbitration is affirmed where arbitration provisions in an enrollment form of a health care service plan failed to comply or substantially comply with Health and Safety Code section 1363.1.
[04/23]
Rodriguez v. Blue Cross of California
Denial of a petition to compel arbitration is affirmed where arbitration provisions in an enrollment form of a health care service plan failed to comply or substantially comply with Health and Safety Code section 1363.1.
More...
Injury & Tort Law
[05/14]
Lockett v. Suardini
In a prisoner's action claiming a violation of his free speech rights when he was forcibly removed from a parole hearing after insulting the hearing officer, as well as cruel and unusual punishment based on guards' use of excessive force and nursing staff's refusal to treat his injuries, summary judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a prisoner is not engaged in protected conduct when he violates a legitimate prison regulation; 2) the prison guards used minimal force and plaintiff suffered minimal injuries when he was removed from the hearing room; and 3) plaintiff did not have an objectively serious medical need due to his minor injuries, and there was no deliberate indifference from the nursing staff since they checked up on the plaintiff twice after the incident.
[05/13]
Union County, Iowa v. Piper Jaffray & Co., Inc.
In a diversity action wherein the district court certified an interlocutory appeal concerning a discovery order, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the district court abused its discretion in certifying the interlocutory appeal when the statutory requirements were not satisfied.
[05/13]
Lash v. Hollis
In a civil rights action arising from injuries sustained during an arrest wherein jury awarded damages as well as attorney's fees, denial of a motion for a new damages-phase trial is affirmed, but the attorney's fees award is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the district court did not err in finding that plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to show that defendant's action in subduing him with a Taser induced or contributed to his rhabdomyolysis; 2) Missouri's sudden onset doctrine was inapplicable to underlying case, which involved multiple possible causes, rather than one alleged event preceding the harm; but 3) the record was unclear as to whether the district court considered the relationship between plaintiffs' successful and unsuccessful claims or overall degree of success obtained in determining the fee award.
[05/13]
Roemmich v. Eagle Eye Dev., LLC
In an action brought by shareholder-plaintiff alleging various violations of his rights as a minority shareholder, partial summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty to a minority shareholder was time barred by North Dakota's statute of limitations; 2) the continuing wrong doctrine did not toll the limitations period; 3) there was no error in findings of fact concerning freeze-out of a minority shareholder, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair deprivation of reasonable expectations; and 4) in applying North Dakota state law, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees and expenses to defendant.
[05/13]
Beazer E., Inc. v. Mead Corp.
In an on-going contribution claim against defendant under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), wherein the district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and certified the question of whether certain caselaw precedent limited subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's contribution claims under section 113(f)(1), the circuit court finds that: 1) the "civil action" requirement in section 113(f) is an element of the claim, and is not jurisdictional; 2) the district court retained its original jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues in this case; and 3) defendant waived its challenge to the applicability of section 113(f)(1).
[05/13]
Price v. Connolly-Pac. Co.
In an action brought by a "commuter seaman" claiming entitlement to "maintenance and cure" from his employer under maritime laws after he allegedly contracted West Nile encephalitis while working on a ship, judgment for employer is affirmed over claims that: 1) under the Shipowner's Liability Convention of 1936, a seaman only needs to prove that an illness incurred, aggravated or manifested itself during the period of employment instead of while in the service of a vessel; and 2) even if a commuter seaman is not on call or engaged in an activity generally considered in the service of a vessel, maintenance and cure is required if an illness is contracted while the seaman is participating in an on-shore activity which benefits the employer.
[05/12]
Evans v. Evans
In an action brought by a deputy sheriff against his former wife and former mother-in-law alleging, inter alia, harassment, defamation, and breach of privacy, a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from publishing certain statements about plaintiff on the internet and also from contacting plaintiff's employer other than calling 911 to report criminal conduct is reversed and remanded where the preliminary injunction was overbroad, vague, and an unconstitutional prior restraint before trial.
[05/09]
U.S. ex rel Fried v. W. Independent Sch. Dist.
Dismissal of a claim under the False Claims Act for Social Security fraud is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claims were based on publicly disclosed information; and 2) plaintiff was not the original source of the information since he failed to show that it was qualitatively different from that which had already been discovered.
[05/09]
California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (Walker)
Vehicle Code section 14602.6(a)(1) provides only discretionary authority to impound and therefore the California Highway Patrol cannot be held liable under Government Code section 815.6 for failing to perform a mandatory duty.
[05/08]
U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.
More...
Workers' Comp
[05/06]
Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.
[04/30]
Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner
In a case considering whether, for purposes of worker's compensation insurance, persons who made deliveries of newspapers for a newspaper publisher were independent contractors or employees, the court of appeals finds that the specific facts of this case and relevant case law supported a conclusion that the carriers were employees, and not independent contractors.
[04/29]
Ramirez v. Murdick
In an action wherein plaintiff filed a Huffman claim seeking liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs for the late payment of worker's compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Superior Court did not err in its interpretation and application of Workers' Compensation Act, 19 Del. C. sections 2357 and 2362(c); and 2) although the Superior Court erred in converting employer's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless.
[04/22]
Sewell Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
In proceedings arising from a claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (the BLBA), an order of the Benefits Review Board affirming an award of benefits is vacated and remanded where: 1) the three year statute of limitations under 20 C.F.R. section 725.308(a) applies to subsequent claims for benefits; and 2) a remand was proper for further proceedings on whether the claim was timely under the three year statute of limitations, as it applies to subsequent claims.
[04/21]
Glazer v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.
In an appeal invoking an issue under ERISA as to when medical reports relied on by a plan administrator during the review of a denial of benefits must be produced to the claimant for her to receive a "full and fair review", summary judgment for plan administrator is affirmed where: 1) the pertinent federal regulations did not require plan administrator to produce the medical reports requested by plaintiff during the pendency of the review; 2) the district court applied the correct legal standard of review; and 3) the decision by plan administrator to deny plaintiff's application for benefits was right.
[04/18]
Brooks v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a case considering whether a year of industrial disability leave (IDL) payable to state employees under Government Code 19869-19877.1 falls within the ambit of the two-year limitation of aggregation of temporary disability payments in Labor Code section 4656 subdivision (c)(1), the court of appeals rules that, under the current statutory scheme, state employees are limited to a maximum of two years of combined temporary disability indemnity.
[04/17]
Foster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a case considering the appropriate application of Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) to situations where multiple independent industrial injuries result in temporary disability, the court of appeals agrees with Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's conclusion that "where independent injuries result in concurrent periods of temporary disability, the 104[-]week/two[-]year limitation likewise runs concurrently".
[04/17]
Smith v. The Waukegan Park Dist.
In a retaliatory discharge action, dismissal of the complaint is reversed where local public entities do not have immunity from claims that employees have been discharged for filing workers' compensation claims.
[12/05]
Levan v. Independence Mall Inc.
In an action arising from an injury in a work-related accident wherein a petition for additional compensation was filed with the Industrial Accident Board more than 5 years after the employer's insurance carrier mailed the last medical expense payment, judgment that the petition was time-barred under 19 Del. C. section 2361(b) is affirmed over claims that: 1) the limitations period began to run when the claimant or his medical provider actually receives the last payment; and 2) the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence; and 3) the Superior Court applied its own construction of section 2361(b) incorrectly and erred when it upheld the Board's ultimate ruling of the petition as barred.
[11/21]
Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 42 Welfare Fund v. Brewster
In a subrogation action brought by an ERISA Fund wherein one of its members sought to have her medical expenses from an automobile accident paid by the Fund, summary judgment for plan administrators is affirmed whereby: 1) the Fund's state law subrogation claim was preempted by ERISA section 514, as the claim "relates to" the ERISA plan; and 2) the Fund's subrogation claim duplicated or supplemented a civil enforcement remedy available to the Fund under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA.
More...
|
