Case Summaries
Dispute Resolution & Arbitration
[11/20]
PPG Indus., Incorp. v. Int'l Chem. Workers Union Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers
District court's order vacating an arbitrator's award in favor of a union on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by adding a term to the underlying contract is reversed and remanded as, even if the arbitrator erred, he acted within the scope of his authority under the contract.
[11/19]
Dealer Computer Servs. Inc. v. Old Colony Motors Inc.
In an action under 9 U.S.C. section 4 to compel defendant to pay a deposit in the underlying arbitration between the parties, an order requiring defendant to pay is reversed where the issue of whether defendant should be required to pay was a procedural issue left to the discretion of the arbitrators.
[11/12]
Cassel v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiff's legal malpractice suit, his request for writ of relief from two orders excluding evidence in favor of his former attorneys is granted and the orders vacated as the communications are a client and his attorney, outside the presence of, and not otherwise communicated to, any opposing party or the mediator, and reveal nothing said or done in the mediation discussion.
[11/12]
South Bay Boston Mgmt., Inc. v. Unite Here, Local 26
District court's grant of defendant-union's motion to compel arbitration and denial of plaintiff's petition for declaratory judgment is affirmed where: 1) the Union neutrality agreement at issue was not void ab initio; and 2) the arbitration clause of the agreement remained in effect.
[11/10]
Safety Nat'l. Cas. Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
In an appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration of a contractual dispute among insurers, the order is reversed where the McCarran–Ferguson Act does not authorize state law to reverse-preempt the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or its implementing legislation.
[11/10]
Conrad v. Phone Directories Co.
In an interlocutory appeal of the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss premised on the existence of an arbitration agreement, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where, to properly invoke appellate jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the movant must either explicitly move to stay litigation and/or compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, or it must be unmistakably clear from the four corners of the motion that the movant seeks relief provided for in the FAA.
[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.
More...
Injury & Tort Law
[11/20]
Hukic v. Aurora Loan Serv.
In plaintiff's suit against defendants claiming breach of contract, tortious interference, and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, arising from a six-figure mortgage he obtained at an interest rate of 10.65% where he was to make monthly payments as well as taxes, insurance premiums and other charges and fees, summary judgment in defendants' favor and dismissal of plaintiff's claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress is affirmed because plaintiff did not comply with the terms of his agreement that required him to submit proof of payment.
[11/19]
Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC
In plaintiff's suit against the defendant-Mobile Park for refusing to permit the installation of a new mobile home in its mobile home park to replace an older one that plaintiff had inherited, trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit is affirmed where: 1) the complaint fails to state a cause of action for statutory violation; 2) the complaint fails to state a tort cause of action for interference with contract; 3) the complaint fails to state a contract cause of action; and 4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.
[11/19]
Johnson v. Honeywell Int'l Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against the defendants arising from injuries he sustained as an HVAC technician while working on defendants' air conditioning equipment, trial court's judgment in favor of defendants is reversed as the sophisticated user defense applies to the negligence cause of action, but not to the strict liability cause of action.
[11/19]
Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against the defendant for sparking a brush fire that caused a significant damage to his ranch, judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) defendant forfeited any error in the jury's verdict form; 2) jury's award of restoration damages in excess of the property's value was supported by substantial evidence and was not excessive as a matter of law; 3) the undisputed evidence established that plaintiff did not reside on the property at the time of the trespass, and his storage of personal property there was not the type of "occupancy" that would justify his recovery of annoyance and discomfort damages; 4) tree damage caused by a negligently spread fire is wrongful injury to trees caused by a trespass subject to mandatory doubling pursuant to Civil Code section 3346, notwithstanding the general provision governing fire damage in Health and Safety Code section 13007; and 5) substantial evidence supported trial court's finding that plaintiff intended to use the property for raising livestock, entitling him to an award of attorney's fees under Code of Civ. Proc. section 1021.9.
[11/19]
Jennings v. Jones
In plaintiff's civil rights case against the state of Rhode Island and a State Police representative and other police officers who had executed a search warrant of his workplace at the Narrangansett Indian Tribe "smoke shop", jury's verdict in favor of defendant in the second trial is affirmed as: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in granting a new trial based on the ground that, even if the jury verdict had unambiguously rested on the increased force theory, that theory would have been contrary to the weight of the evidence; and 2) there was no waiver of the new trial motion by defendant.
[11/18]
Cell Therapeutics Inc. v. Lash Group Inc.
In an action for indemnification based on the settlement of an underlying suit against plaintiff for violations of the False Claims Act (FCA), judgment on the pleadings for defendant is reversed where: 1) the facts articulated in plaintiff's complaint were sufficient to state a claim for damages independent of the question of plaintiff's liability under the FCA; and 2) the district court erred in characterizing the settlement as effectively establishing FCA liability and thus barring the claims against defendant.
[11/18]
US ex rel Ondis v. City of Woonsocket
In plaintiff's qui tam action against a city under the False Claims Act claiming that the city had defrauded the federal government by making false statements to the Department of Housing and Urban Development when applying for federal grants, dismissal of the case is affirmed where the was no error in a conclusion that the FCA's public disclosure bar applied to divest the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over the action as: 1) the city's alleged misrepresentation and what the plaintiff alleges was the city's true plan were sufficiently in the public domain to ground an inference of fraud; 2) the public disclosure occurred in the manner specified in the statute; 3) plaintiff's suit is based upon those publicly disclosed allegations or transactions; 4) plaintiff does not qualify for the original source exception; and 5) district court did not err in precluding certain testimony during an evidentiary hearing.
[11/17]
Nutragenetics, LLC v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiff's suit against the defendants alleging he was defrauded into investing in their company, defendants' petition for writ of mandate is denied as trial court properly found plaintiff's peremptory challenge to the judge to be timely where: 1) the second lawsuit involves a different defendant and different causes of action asserted against that defendant; and 2) the second lawsuit does not arise from conduct in, or involve enforcement or modification of an order in, the first lawsuit.
[11/17]
Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc.
In plaintiffs' products liability suit against defendants for injuries caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products aboard US Navy vessels, trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is reversed in where: 1) plaintiffs have not shown that defendant manufactured, supplied, or distributed the products which caused his exposure to asbestos; and 2) defendant is not liable in strict liability for failing to warn of the dangerous properties of those products or for a design defect in those products.
[11/16]
Montalvo v. Gonzalez-Amparo
In an action alleging malpractice by plaintiff's deceased mother's medical care providers, dismissal of the suit as time-barred is vacated and remanded where: 1) the date of accrual for plaintiff's personal claim was within the one-year statute of limitations; and 2) under 32 L.P.R.A. section 255, plaintiff is entitled to bring her mother's medical malpractice claim because it was brought within one year of her mother's death.
More...
Workers' Comp
[11/13]
Gelson's Markets, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision and award finding the employer liable for discrimination against an industrially injured employee because the employer did not accept a physician's release to allow the employee to return to work is annulled as the employee did not establish a prima facie showing of employer's liability for discrimination in violation of Labor Code section 132a, and as such, the burden did not shift to the employer to establish an affirmative defense.
[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.
More...
|
