News
Civil Rights
Environment
Politics
Supreme Court
Tort
Business
|
|
Case Summaries
Civil Procedure
[08/14] American Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Continental Cas. Ins. Co.
In an action for insurance indemnity and contribution, arising out of a trademark dispute between Goto.com and Disney, summary judgment in favor of group of insurers who objected to settlement funded by a separate group of insurers is affirmed over multiple claims of error involving notice and scope of policy coverage.
[08/20] Vaughn v. Epworth Villa
In an action alleging that plaintiff was retaliated against by defendant for participating in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) process, dismissal of the claim is affirmed where: 1) although plaintiff engaged in a "protected activity" when she submitted unredacted medical records to the EEOC; 2) however, defendant provided a legitimate and facially non-retaliatory reason for its decision to terminate her based on the violation of the organization's policies and procedures regarding confidentiality when without authorization, specifically because she provided unredacted medical records to the EEOC; 3) plaintiff failed to establish that the reason was pretextual; and 4) she did not produce direct evidence of retaliation.
[08/20] Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. USIS Commercial Servs., Inc.
In truck drivers' action alleging defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in its procurement and dissemination of plaintiffs' employment histories, judgment for defendant is affirmed over challenges to: 1) a ruling finding that disputed reports are not "consumer reports" procured for employment purposes; 2) an evidentiary ruling admitting evidence regarding employer trucking companies' use of the reports they obtained from defendant; and 3) a denial of class certification.
More...
Class Actions
[08/20] Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. USIS Commercial Servs., Inc.
In truck drivers' action alleging defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in its procurement and dissemination of plaintiffs' employment histories, judgment for defendant is affirmed over challenges to: 1) a ruling finding that disputed reports are not "consumer reports" procured for employment purposes; 2) an evidentiary ruling admitting evidence regarding employer trucking companies' use of the reports they obtained from defendant; and 3) a denial of class certification.
[08/20] Rosenau v. Unifund Corp.
In a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) alleging that defendant sent deceptive debt-collection letters, judgment for defendant on the pleadings is reversed and remanded where the "least sophisticated debtor" reading defendant's letter might reasonably interpret it as being from an attorney when in fact it was not.
[08/20] Buckley v. Mukasey
In an action under Title VII claiming race discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation stemming from plaintiff's employment as a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration, judgment as a matter of law for the government is vacated and remanded where: 1) district court's ruling on certain class action litigation evidence constituted an error of law and thus, an abuse of discretion; 2) the court erred in granting the government's Rule 50 motion on a failure-to-promote retaliation claim; and 3) plaintiff was entitled to a new trial on the claims that were, and which should have been, submitted to the jury in a 2006 trial.
More...
Constitutional Law
[08/20] Barr v. Lafon
In an action brought by high school students in Tennessee desiring to express their southern heritage by wearing clothing depicting the Confederate flag at school and raising First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, and Due Process Clause claims, summary judgment for defendants-principal and other officials is affirmed where: 1) the school reasonably forecasted that images of the Confederate flag would substantially and materially disrupt the school environment; 2) the dress code's ban on racially divisive symbols, as enforced against the Confederate flag, is narrowly tailored to a substantial government interest; and 3) plaintiffs forfeited their due process claim.
[08/19] Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods, L.L.C.
In a class-action suit alleging injury caused by methylmercury and other harmful compounds in defendant's canned tuna products, grant of a motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded where: 1) the FDA had not enacted a pervasive regulatory scheme regarding mercury in tuna that would preempt plaintiff's state-law claims; 2) the FDA's decision not to require warning labels on tuna was not a conclusive determination preempting a state failure-to-warn claim; and 3) the FDA had not expressly rejected mercury warnings as misbranding under federal law.
[08/19] Zumbrun Law Firm v. California Legislature
Denial of declaratory and injunctive relief for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the contract for the Capitol Park Safety and Security Improvement Project (Capitol Project) did not violate the separation of powers doctrine of article III, section 3 of the Constitution because the Legislature retains power necessary to its lawmaking functions, including the power to protect the safety and security of the Legislature; 2) the Legislature did not delegate this function to the Department of General Services when it created the Department to provide management and technical services for the state; and 3) the Legislature is not bound by the competitive bidding requirements of the State Contract Act, and the documents sought are exempt from discovery under LORA and the Constitution.
More...
Environmental Law
[08/20] El Comite para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam
In a challenge under section 304 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) brought by a coalition of community organizations against California state officials responsible for designing and implementing a state air quality plan, challenging the process by which EPA approval of the plan was obtained and the final outcome of the approval process, summary judgment for plaintiff and a remedies order are reversed and vacated where, because section 304 of the CAA provides jurisdiction only to enforce an "emission standard or limitation," and because the challenged conduct did not implicate such a standard or limitation, the court was without jurisdiction to order a remedy.
[08/20] James River Ins. Co. v. Ground Down Engineering, Inc.
In plaintiff-insurer's claim seeking a declaratory judgment that it is not obligated to provide a legal defense to defendant-insured, dismissal of claim is vacated where: 1) district court erred in holding that the pollution exclusion does not apply; and 2) the pollution exclusion clearly covers the claims asserted against defendant.
[08/19] Sierra Club v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
In an action challenging an EPA rule preventing state and local authorities from supplementing emissions-monitoring requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA), petition for review is granted in part and denied in part where: 1) the rule preventing supplementing of requirements was unambiguously precluded by Title V of the CAA; but 2) the monitoring requirements enumerated in 40 C.F.R. section 70 were consistent with the mandate of the CAA.
More...
Government Benefits
[08/19] US v. Flaherty
In an action brought under the False Claims Act alleging that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided a reimbursement check to defendant as a result of a fraudulent scheme, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where qui tam actions cannot be brought pro se.
[08/15] Delph v. Astrue
In a Social Security disability benefits and supplemental security income payments case, a ruling against claimant is affirmed where substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant's condition had improved and that was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
[08/15] AG v. Peake
In a veteran's claim for disability benefits, denial of claimant's request for an earlier effective date for benefits payments is vacated and remanded where, in the absence of a notice of a veteran's right to appeal, the VA's dismissal of that veteran's claim was non-final.
More...
|
