Case Summaries

Class Actions

[03/10] Hesse v. Sprint Corp.
In a class action alleging that defendant Sprint Corp. unlawfully collected a Washington state tax from Washington customers, summary judgment for defendant is vacated and remanded where a prior class action settlement challenged Sprint's billing of customers for certain federal regulatory fees, and the Washington plaintiffs' interests were not adequately represented in that litigation.

More...

Commercial Law

[03/15] Kim v. Carter's Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against a children's clothing retailer for damages under Illinois contract and consumer protection law, claiming they were victims of deceptive pricing, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, defendant has fulfilled its obligations under the straightforward, everyday sales contract described in the complaint; and 2) plaintiffs' allegations fail to establish the actual damages element of their Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA) claim.

More...

Consumer Products

[03/03] Byers v. Intuit, Inc.
In plaintiff's putative class action on behalf of U.S. taxpayers against the IRS and a consortium of companies in the electronic tax preparation and filing industry (FFA) claiming violations of the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA) in the charging of fees in exchange for providing e-filing services, as well as a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, dismissal of both claims is affirmed where: 1) the district court was correct in holding that the IOAA does not apply to the FFA members, as it only applies to a government agency and none of the exceptions in Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 1999) apply; and 2) the district court did not err in dismissing the Sherman Act claim as the FFA members are entitled to conduct-based implied antitrust immunity with respect to the anti-competitive action taken pursuant to the Ceiling Provisions of the 2005 Agreement with the IRS.

More...

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[03/10] Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd.
In an appeal from a district court's order granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoining defendant from proceeding with an arbitration initiated against plaintiff before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the order is affirmed where the "serious questions" standard for assessing a movant's likelihood of success on the merits remains valid in the wake of recent Supreme Court cases, and neither the district court's assessment of the facts nor its application of the law supported a finding of abuse of discretion.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[03/16] US v. Livesay
In defendant's appeal from the district court's order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General while expressly leaving open the possibility of his release, either conditionally or unconditionally, at a later date, the order is affirmed where the district court was correct when it concluded that it was not statutorily authorized to afford defendant a conditional release, even if it wished to do so.

More...

ERISA

[03/16] Schexnayder v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.
In an ERISA action claiming that defendant-insurer wrongly denied plaintiff disability benefits, summary judgment on the merits for plaintiff is affirmed where defendant's decision was procedurally unreasonable because the Social Security Administration (SSA) determined that plaintiff was fully disabled and unable to perform any work, but defendant did not address the SSA award in any of its denial letters. However, the district court's order granting plaintiff attorney's fees is reversed where the legal questions in this case were much closer than the district court credited, and the district court therefore abused its discretion in assessing attorneys' fees against defendant.

More...

Evidence

[03/16] US v. Jennings
Defendants' convictions and sentences arising out of their participation in a scheme to sell fraudulent workers' compensation insurance are affirmed where: 1) a government expert's testimony about her work and her familiarity with the regulatory environment was not hearsay; 2) in light of the substantial evidence to convict one defendant, the minor significance of a witness's comments regarding civil litigation involving that defendant, and defendant's refusal of a curative instruction, the denial of a mistrial was proper; 3) the district court properly applied a manager or operator enhancement based on defendant's extensive involvement in the development and operation of the scheme; and 4) the court properly applied an obstruction of justice enhancement because defendant's testimony directly contradicted his grand jury testimony on a material matter.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[03/15] Qureshi v. US
In plaintiff's appeal from a sua sponte order of the district court requiring him to obtain the court's permission before filing suit in any federal court in the state of Texas, the order is vacated where the district court entered the injunction without giving any prior notice to plaintiff and without offering him any opportunity to oppose the injunction or be heard on its merits.

More...

Legal Malpractice

[03/11] Freedman v. Brutzkus
In plaintiff's action for fraud against defendants, trial court's dismissal of the action following the sustaining of defendants' demurrer is affirmed as a signature of an attorney under the legend "approved as to form and content" on a contract does not amount to an actionable representation to an opposing party's attorney that can provide a basis for tort liability.

More...

Professional Malpractice

[03/04] Aills v. Boemi
In plaintiff's medical malpractice suit against defendant plastic surgeon arising out of negligence in connection with an elective surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeal is quashed and remanded as the district court erred in reversing for a new trial on the basis of an improper argument by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument.

More...

Workers' Comp

[03/05] Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.

More...