Legal News

Case Summaries

Attorney's Fees

[12/31] In the Matter of: Owens
Bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing debtor's bad-faith Chapter 11 case rather than converting it to Chapter 7. When deciding between dismissal and conversion under 11 U.S.C. section 1112(b), the court must consider the interests of all the creditors; here, the other creditors would fare worse under Chapter 7 because the accompanying discharge would deny them access to debtor's future income.

[12/30] Chinese Yellow Pages Co. v. Chinese Overseas Mktg. Svc. Corp.
Denial of request for postjudgment fees and costs incurred in a bankruptcy proceeding brought by defendant and judgment debtor is reversed where: 1) Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040 can extend to reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and costs incurred in postjudgment bankruptcy proceedings under the circumstances of the present case; and 2) because the trial court ruled it had no jurisdiction to award reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and costs, the case is reversed.

More...

Commercial Law

[12/31] Gen. Store, Inc. v. Van Loan
Revocation of a federal firearms dealer license for willful violations of federal and state firearms laws is affirmed. A violation of the Gun Control Act requires a willful violation that is "a deliberate, knowing, or reckless violation of its requirements," and both of plaintiff's violations satisfied this standard.

[12/31] US Motors v. Gen. Motors Europe
District court correctly dismissed this case, brought by domestic and foreign plaintiffs against a foreign defendant, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The presence of foreign parties on both sides of the dispute destroyed the complete diversity required by 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(2).

More...

Contracts

[12/31] Conner Bros. Constr. Co. v. Geren
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals correctly denied contractor's claim for delay damages caused when Army denied access to construction site for 41 days following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, because the sovereign acts doctrine shielded the Army from any liability for its decision to deny access to the construction site for security purposes while Army Rangers prepared for deployment.

[12/31] Holmes v. Potter
Reduction in former postal employee's annuity was not a breach of the settlement agreement arising from his Rehabilitation Act claim, because although that agreement did set his retirement date: 1) the agreement did not discuss the amount of money he would be paid during retirement or how that retirement pay would be computed; and 2) the agreement was unambiguous, and therefore the mediator's statements to the plaintiff were inadmissible.

More...

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[12/29] Abbotts v. Campbell
Participants in a Common Stock Purchase Agreement failed to show that the nondisclosure of a waiver of certain provisions of that Agreement was a proximate cause of their investment losses. The investors also failed to show that they exercised reasonable diligence warranting equitable tolling of the six-year statute of limitations specified by Minnesota Statute section 541.05.

[12/29] People v. Roscoe
Following judgment finding defendants jointly and severally liable for penalties pursuant to laws governing underground storage of hazardous substances, judgment against defendant is affirmed where the responsible corporate officer doctrine applies to Health and Safety Code section 25299(a)(6) of the tank laws and thus subjects to liability as an "operator" a corporate officer who had "a responsible share in the furtherance of the transaction which the statute outlaws", even where the corporation itself was also found to be the operator.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[12/31] US v. House
Defendant's sentence of 188 months for distribution of crack cocaine is affirmed where the district court: 1) properly adjusted base offense level due to defendant's obstruction of justice in asking defense witness not to testify; 2) did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce sentence based on the disparity in the sentencing guidelines for powder cocaine versus crack cocaine; and 3) properly considered all the requisite factors under sentencing law.

[12/31] US v. Hill
Conviction for bank robbery is affirmed where the district court committed harmless error in admitting evidence that defendant bought a luxury car shortly after the bank robbery. Defendant's challenge to the impartiality of his jury is also rejected because the court's method of questioning potential jurors was sufficient to assure that any prejudice would have been discovered and, in any event, defendant had failed to use all his peremptory challenges.

More...

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[12/31] Eastern Seaboard Constr., Inc. v. Gray Constr., Inc.
In an arbitration to resolve dispute between defendant-contractor and plaintiff-construction company, decision vacating amended arbitration award and denying plaintiff prejudgment interest on its award is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where the arbitrator's omission of the $66,613.89 contract balance in the initial award, rather than a redetermination of the merits, was the type of "clerical, typographical, technical or computational error[]" which AAA Rule 47 permitted him to amend or clarify.

[12/29] Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consolidated Investments
In a lawsuit arising out of an alleged hostile takeover attempt of a publicly traded company, dismissal of complaint is reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part where: 1) the district court erred in dismissing the claim against co-defendant for insufficient service of process when co-defendant had already waived that defense; 2) the district court's dismissal of one count is affirmed as plaintiff did not allege that defendants were beneficial owners of plaintiff's stock, thus such defendants were not part of a section 13(d)(3) group required to file a Schedule 13D form; 3) a fraud claim was not within the scope of an arbitration clause because the conduct of the South African defendants giving rise to the claim was not "reasonably foreseeable" in 1994 when the licensing agreement and arbitration provision were executed, and thus the dispute did not "arise" out of the agreement; and 4) even in light of the general federal policy in favor of private commercial dispute resolution, the parties' licensing agreement arbitration clause did not cover not cover the fraud claim.

More...

Elder Law

[12/05] AutoZone, Inc. v. Reyes
In an age-discrimination suit, jury verdict for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) the statements of a store manager were not evidence that age was a motivating factor in defendant's termination of plaintiff; and 2) defendant claimed, as a non-discriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff, that plaintiff had violated its sexual harassment policy, and plaintiff presented no evidence under which a reasonable jury could find that defendant treated him less favorably than any other employee who had violated that policy.

[06/07] Rath v. Carbondale Nursing and Rehab. Center, Inc.
Judgment for plaintiff on a claim for damages pursuant to the Nursing Home Care Act alleging various negligent acts by the defendant is affirmed where: 1) testimony as to defendant's negligence was proper even though defendant admitted to various acts of negligence since the information was relevant beyond the conclusions conceded by defendants; and 2) the fee award was reasonable in light of the contingency fee arrangement.

More...

Entertainment

[12/30] Raymond F. Kravis Ctr. for the Performing Acts, Inc. v. NLRB
Theater was properly found to have violated the National Labor Relations Act when, upon expiration of its collective bargaining agreements with stagehand labor union, it unilaterally declared an impasse, withdrew from further bargaining, and thereafter refused to hire stagehands referred by the union. In affirming NLRB's decision, the court finds that: 1) union was the "exclusive representative" of the stagehand employees as defined by the Act, and theater was therefore required to continue bargaining with union upon contract expiration; 2) theater did not qualify for the "construction industry" exception to the requirement of continued bargaining; 3) theater's argument that the union lacked majority support of the employees was time-barred; and 4) the union's subsequent merger with another union did not absolve theater of its obligations.

[05/14] Caso v. Nimrod Prod., Inc.
In a personal injury action brought by a professional stuntman for injuries sustained from a stunt performance, summary judgment based on a finding that the claims were barred by workers' compensation exclusivity rules is affirmed where: 1) the undisputed facts demonstrated that individual-defendants were "special employees" acting within the scope of employment at the time of the accident, thus precluding a co-employee's action against them under workers' compensation rules; 2) plaintiff did not present any evidence showing that corporate-defendants retained control over individual-defendants so as to impute vicarious liability, notwithstanding their special employment relationship with plaintiff's employer; and 3) claims of loss of consortium were barred by workers' compensation exclusivity.

More...

Family Law

[12/31] In re: Belcher
District court erred in allowing bankrupt husband to claim a homestead exemption in marital home because wife's name alone appeared on the title. Husband's potential equitable property interests in the home under divorce law, and his "possessory interest" in the family residence as spouse of the homeowner, were insufficient to permit him to claim the homestead exemption.

[12/23] Jose O. v. The Superior Court of San Diego County
In a family law matter, petition for review of decision denying petitioner-father reunification services is denied where father made no showing that the court abused its discretion by not providing reunification services for him after finding section 361.5(b)(6) applied.

More...

Indian Law

[12/24] McGuire v. US
The Tucker Act's sovereign immunity waiver is limited to suits filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims. Consequently, the district court in this case lacked jurisdiction to entertain a bankruptcy debtor's Tucker Act claims.

[12/16] Ameriloan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
In claim brought by companies providing short-term loans to state residents over the internet, petition for writ of mandate compelling trial court to vacate its denial of their collective motion to quash service of summons is granted in part and denied in part where the trial court did not address whether the companies operate as "arms of the tribe" for purposes of the tribal sovereign immunity doctrine and the court erroneously concluded that: 1) tribal sovereign immunity did not apply to off-reservation commercial activity; 2) application of the tribal sovereign immunity doctrine in this enforcement action would intrude on California's exercise of state sovereignty protected by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and 3) each of the tribes affiliated with the loan companies had affirmatively waived its immunity and consented to be sued in state court.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[12/30] Food Pro Int'l, Inc. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
In connection to a tort claim brought by an injured construction worker against plaintiff, judgment in favor of defendant-insurer in plaintiff-insuree's claim for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is reversed where: 1) there was no merit to plaintiff's punitive damages argument; but 2) the trial court erred in finding that defendant-insurer had no duty to defend plaintiff.

[12/30] Doe v. SexSearch.com
District court correctly dismissed this suit, brought against an online adult dating service by one of its subscribers. Plaintiff failed to state a claim in alleging that the service is at fault for his sexual relationship with a minor and the harm that resulted from his arrest, notwithstanding that the service requires each subscriber to promise that he or she is at least eighteen years old.

More...

Judges & Judiciary

[06/30] ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASS'N, INC. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY
The Court denied plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate to disclose records relating to reimbursement of travel expenses for judges and management employees of the Court pursuant to the California Public Records Act, because the Act did not apply to the requested disclosure.

[06/28] US v. PARKER
Evidence seized under a warrant issued by a trial commissioner who was also an administrative assistant at the county jail was properly excluded, because the commissioner was not a neutral and detached party.

More...

Landlord Tenant

[06/12] 936 Second Avenue L.P. v. Second Corporate Dev. Co., Inc.
In a lease dispute involving the issue of whether the net lease itself must be considered by appraisers in valuing the demised premises for purposes of establishing the net rent for a renewal term of the lease, the Court of Appeals rules that, because the net lease does not exclude its consideration, it must be taken into account in valuing the property.

[06/10] Golden Rain Foundation v. Franz
Judgment finding plaintiff was an "association" subject to the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported that plaintiff was a non-profit association created to manage a common interest development; and 2) the declaration of trust which created the common interest development was effective.

More...

Probate Trusts

[12/31] Boys and Girls Club of Petaluma v. Walsh
Probate court's modification of a charitable trust in 2007 pursuant to Probate Code section 15403 is affirmed where: 1) "all beneficiaries" of the charitable trust consented to the modification in accordance with section 15403(a); and 2) the broad discretion conferred up on the trustees did not constitute a "material purpose" which would prevent a probate court from modifying the charitable trust pursuant to section 15403(b).

[12/29] Estate of Shellenbarger
Denial of petition to exclude natural father's entitlement to distribution in decedent's estate is affirmed where a probate court may not, on principles of equity, disinherit a natural parent who abandons a child who later dies intestate.

More...

Professional Malpractice

[06/13] Leland v. Brandal
In the context of health care liability claims and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code section 74.351(c), when elements of a timely filed expert report are found deficient, either by the trial court or on appeal, one thirty-day extension to cure the report may be granted.

[06/12] Florida Bar v. Dove
A referee's recommendation that respondent be disciplined by a public reprimand, receive two years probation, and forfeit fees of eight-thousand dollars for her actions during an adoption case is rejected and respondent's cross-appeal for rejection of disgorgement of fees is approved where: 1) although disbarment is the presumptive sanction in a case in which candor and material misrepresentations to the court are at issue, a three year suspension is proper given the mitigating factors; 2) disgorgement is only permitted to the Client Security Fund of the Florida Bar and not to the Florida Bar Foundation since it is not mentioned in the rule; 3) disgorgement does not apply since the fee was not prohibited, illegal, or excessive; 4) fines are not permitted in disciplinary cases; and 5) the award of costs to the complainant was proper since the members should not unnecessarily bear the costs of prosecuting misdeeds of unethical members.

More...

Sentencing

[12/31] US v. House
Defendant's sentence of 188 months for distribution of crack cocaine is affirmed where the district court: 1) properly adjusted base offense level due to defendant's obstruction of justice in asking defense witness not to testify; 2) did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce sentence based on the disparity in the sentencing guidelines for powder cocaine versus crack cocaine; and 3) properly considered all the requisite factors under sentencing law.

[12/31] US v. Spinelli
Conviction for conspiracy to commit murder and assault with a dangerous weapon, both for the purpose of increasing and maintaining a position in a racketeering enterprise, and related offenses are affirmed. Although the prosecutor erred by vouching to the jury that the government's cooperating accomplices had never perjured themselves or falsely implicated anybody in a crime, her improper remarks did not justify disturbing the verdict.

More...

Sports Law

[12/19] Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc.
In action against defendants-college and Angels Baseball LP contending that the Angels' Mother's Day tote bag giveaway violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Unruh Act protects against intentional discrimination that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or invidious; 2) defendant's allegations against the Angels' Mother's Day tote bag giveaway were not supported by the interpretation of, or policy behind, the Unruh Act; and 3) the tote bag giveaway honored mothers as a group of individuals without promoting any irrational stereotypes, and therefore did not violate the Unruh Act.

[12/19] Ontiveros v. 24 Hour Fitness Corp.
In a product liability action for injuries sustained while exercising on a stair step machine at a fitness center owned and operated by defendant, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the undisputed evidence showed that the dominant purpose of plaintiff's membership agreement with defendant was for the provision of fitness services; and thus, 2) defendant was not strictly liable to plaintiff under a product liability theory of recovery.

More...