Case Summaries

Class Actions

[07/02] Appel v. Spiridon
A preliminary injunction, preventing defendants from requiring plaintiff to submit to a psychological examination in order to maintain her teaching position at a state school, is reversed and remanded in light of a recent Supreme Court decision holding that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to a public employee asserting a violation of the Clause based on a "class of one" theory.

More...

Commercial Law

[07/02] Deckers Corp. v. US
In a suit contesting the proper classification of three styles of sports sandals under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, a decision holding that the merchandise was properly classified under subheading 6404.19.35 is affirmed where the sandals at issue have open toes and open heels, and lack the features of the named exemplars of 6406.11.80, and thus the imported goods are not classifiable under that subheading notwithstanding their claimed status as athletic footwear.

More...

Consumer Products

[06/19] Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
In a class action against DaimlerChrysler alleging that it breached express and implied warranties and committed fraud in the sale of certain Dodge Neon cars containing defective head gaskets, dismissal and summary judgment rulings for defendant are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to allege that his Dodge Neon failed to perform as expressly warranted; 2) an implied warranty claim failed as plaintiff was not in vertical privity with DaimlerChrysler as required by state law; 3) thus, state law and the Magnuson-Moss Act claims were properly dismissed; 4) the statute of limitations barred a fraud claim; and 5) an Unfair Competition Law claim failed as defendant's conduct was not unfair within the meaning of the statute, and there was insufficient evidence that the gasket's failure rate was material to a reasonable consumer.

More...

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[07/03] United Steel, Paper & Forestry, etc. v. TriMas Corp.
In an action to compel arbitration under the Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA) arising out of the parties' dispute over a neutrality agreement, summary judgment for union is affirmed where the district court correctly: 1) found that the dispute was covered by the language of the arbitration clause; and 2) left consideration of certain extrinsic evidence to the arbitrator.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[07/03] Tablada v. Thomas
In a case involving whether the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in promulgating a regulation interpreting 18 U.S.C. section 3624(b), which governs the calculation of good conduct time for federal prisoners, the court finds that: 1) the BOP concededly violated the APA by failing to articulate a rational basis for its decision to promulgate the regulation; but 2) the remedy for the violation is to interpret the federal statute in accordance with the BOP's Program Statement 5880.28; and 3) the BOP's methodology for calculating good time credits under Statement 5880.28 was both reasonable and persuasive under applicable law.

More...

ERISA

[07/02] Sgro v. Danone Waters of N. Am., Inc.
In an ERISA action arising from a denial of plaintiff's claim for disability benefits, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) dismissal of state law claims was proper as defendant's disability plan is governed by ERISA, but the dismissal should have been without prejudice; 2) a California insurance regulation does not require defendants to reimburse plaintiff for the cost of copying the medical records that defendant-insurer/administrator requested, as that regulation is preempted by ERISA; 3) defendants did not violate ERISA's regulation on "claims procedures" by requiring documentation from plaintiff regarding his claim; and 4) a remand was required in part as to dismissal of a claim that defendants violated ERISA section 1132(c)(1) for failing to turn over certain documents.

More...

Evidence

[07/03] US v. Morriss
Denial of a motion to suppress statements made outside the presence of counsel is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erroneously found his Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach during an interview in which he provided inculpatory statements; and 2) the government violated his due process rights by interviewing him during a lapse in representation.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[07/03] Crowley Marine Servs. Inc. v. Maritrans Inc.
In an action arising out of the collision of plaintiff's tug boat with defendants' oil tanker, a district court's reallocation of fault in the matter is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in considering the coordinated nature of the tug escort, the tug boat's violations of Rules 5 and 17(b), or the negligence of both plaintiff and the tug's captain; and 2) it did not err in apportioning 70% of the responsibility for the collision to the tug boat.

More...

Legal Malpractice

[07/02] Rodriguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp. of Carolina
In a medical malpractice case against defendant-hospital presenting the issue of whether an Asset Purchase Agreement entered between past and present owners of the hospital absolved the current owner's liability for acts or omissions by the hospital's previous owners and/or operators, the circuit court finds that the terms of the asset purchase agreement not only could, but did, absolve the present owners from liability.

More...

Professional Malpractice

[07/02] Allen v. Brown Clinic, P.L.L.P
In a medical malpractice suit, jury verdict for defendant-doctor is affirmed over claims that the district court erred when it denied his motion to exclude for cause: 1) all jurors who had ever received medical treatment at a particular clinic or with a particular doctor; 2) all jurors who had family members who had been treated at the clinic or by the doctor; and 3) two jurors who had relatives with connections to the defendants. A claim that the district court erred in denying a motion to exclude defendants' medical expert is also rejected.

More...

Workers' Comp

[07/03] BNSF Ry. Co. v. Swanson
Provisions of Minnesota Statute sections 609.849(a)(1) and (a)(2), governing a railroad's treatment of injured workers, are both preempted by the Internal Control Plans regulations adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act.

More...