Case Summaries
Corporation & Enterprise Law
[05/13] Roemmich v. Eagle Eye Dev., LLC
In an action brought by shareholder-plaintiff alleging various violations of his rights as a minority shareholder, partial summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty to a minority shareholder was time barred by North Dakota's statute of limitations; 2) the continuing wrong doctrine did not toll the limitations period; 3) there was no error in findings of fact concerning freeze-out of a minority shareholder, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair deprivation of reasonable expectations; and 4) in applying North Dakota state law, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees and expenses to defendant.
[05/13] Estate of Pew v. Cardarelli
In an appeal primarily addressing whether a claim fell within the exception to the Class Action Fairness Act's ("CAFA") grant of original and appellate jurisdiction for class actions which solely involve claims concerning certain rights and duties related to any security, the circuit court: 1) rules that the suit at hand does not fall within such exception to CAFA jurisdiction, and thus it has authority to accept an appeal from a remand order; 2) grants defendant's petition for leave to appeal; and 3) reverses the district court's remand order on the merits.
[05/12] Kornman & Assocs. Inc. v. US
In a proceeding under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) in which plaintiffs were alleged to have attempted to create an artificial tax loss through the short sale of Treasury Notes and the transfer of partnership interests, summary judgment for the government and dismissal with prejudice of a petition for readjustment of partnership items is affirmed where the obligation to close a short sale is a liability for purposes of I.R.C. section 752.
[05/09] Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures and Television
In a breach of contract action involving Disney's alleged failure to fully compensate for its exploitation of the cartoon characters depicted in plaintiff's novel "Who Censored Roger Rabbit?", judgment for plaintiff including the amount of damages awarded is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the trial court erroneously allowed the jury to interpret the term "purchaser" in a 1983 agreement when the meaning of that term was not dependent on the credibility of conflicting extrinsic evidence, and thus there was no factual issue for the jury to resolve; and 2) because plaintiff's royalty payments under the agreement did not include any entitlement to the gross receipt of Disney's subsidiaries, the trial court's award of that amount was erroneous.
[05/08] In re: Straightline Invs., Inc.
A judgment under 11 U.S.C. section 549(a) avoiding the transfer to appellant of corporate bankruptcy debtor's accounts receivable which had a face value of approximately $200,600 is affirmed over appellant's claims that: 1) the transfer of accounts receivable was not an avoidable transfer because there was no depletion or diminution of debtor's estate; 2) the transfer was an outright sale of receivables in the ordinary course of business, and the defenses of recoupment and earmarking should apply to bar recovery by the trustee; and 3) even if it was avoidable, the wrong measure of recovery was awarded.
More...
Government Law
[05/15] Huntleigh USA Corp. v. US
In a company's action against the government alleging, inter alia, that the Aviation and Transportation Security Act's (ATSA) transfer of responsibility for passenger and baggage screening resulted in an unconstitutional taking of its property without just compensation, a judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff could not claim a taking since the ATSA did not regulate plaintiff directly but merely "frustrated" plaintiff's business expectations by reducing the demand for plaintiff's services; and 2) plaintiff was not entitled to compensation under ATSA section 101(g)(2) since it gives the government the power to assume the contracts but does not require it to do so.
[05/14] Cruz v. State of Louisiana
Dismissal of state and federal claims of sexual discrimination against defendants is affirmed where dismissal of a federal claim due to plaintiff's failure to timely serve defendant prevented interruption of the prescriptive period in state courts against defendants from Louisiana.
[05/14] U.S. v. Jesco Constr. Corp.
In a statutory interpleader action involving certain funds owed by the Army Corps of Engineers to defendant, summary judgment determining the parties' claims' respective priority is affirmed where: 1) losing intervenor's argument of equitable subrogation is not recognized by Louisiana courts; 2) although losing intervenor has a right of subrogation by operation of law, it is still inferior to the prevailing intervenor's perfected security interest claim.
[05/14] Springer v. Adkins
A decision granting respondent an increased annuity payment under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) is affirmed where: 1) retirement under 5 U.S.C. section 8451 does not incorporate the age and years of service requirements of section 8412 except where explicitly stated; and 2) the FERS disability annuity provisions require that a firefighter annuitant's benefits be the greater of that which is computed under sections 8452(a) and 8415(d).
[05/13] Steele v. Youthful Offender Parole Bd.
A judgment finding an employer liable under Fair Employment and Housing Act for retaliation against a plaintiff-employee and awarding economic damages along with attorney's fees is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity, subjected to adverse employment action, and that a causal link existed between plaintiff's participation as a witness and the adverse employment action; and 2) consequently , the attorney's fees award was proper.
More...
Property Law & Real Estate
[05/14] Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Antt
An order enjoining California and Florida from applying their licensing and regulatory requirements on a Texas-based real estate broker is reversed and dismissed where: 1) personal jurisdiction over California did not arise from merely having sent cease and desist orders to the Texas Real Estate Commission; and 2) personal jurisdiction over Florida did not arise from the state's contact with the Texas Attorney General's Office in order to obtain information on the plaintiff for a suit in Florida.
[05/14] Ericson v. Fed. Express Corp.
In a premises liability tort action arising from a third-party's assault and robbery incident in defendant's parking lot, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the third-party assault was not foreseeable under even the "regular reasonable forseeability" test; and 2) the negligent undertaking doctrine was inapplicable.
[05/14] Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C.
In an action brought by plaintiff-architect under the Copyright Act alleging that defendants infringed his copyrighted architectural designs via the design, development, and construction of certain Trump buildings, summary judgment for defendants, as well as a denial of a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, are affirmed where a thorough review of the record indicated that the district court properly made its rulings under the specific facts of the case and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for leave to amend.
[05/13] Garcia v. Brockway
An aggrieved person must bring a private civil action under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) for a failure to properly design and construct within two years of the completion of the construction phase, which concludes on the date that the last certificate of occupancy is issued. (Panel opinion adopted by the en banc court with amendments)
[05/13] N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica
In an action brought by a developer against the city of Pacifica involving a proposed condominium project, dismissal of developer's substantive due process claim is affirmed, but an order holding city liable for an equal protection violation is reversed and the resultant damages awards vacated where: 1) the developer was not entitled to judgment on an equal protection claim, as the city did not intentionally treat it differently from any other developer; and 2) a due process claim should not be resurrected because developer did not allege any irrational delay in the city's approval of its permits.
More...
Injury & Tort Law
[05/14] Ericson v. Fed. Express Corp.
In a premises liability tort action arising from a third-party's assault and robbery incident in defendant's parking lot, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the third-party assault was not foreseeable under even the "regular reasonable forseeability" test; and 2) the negligent undertaking doctrine was inapplicable.
[05/14] Lockett v. Suardini
In a prisoner's action claiming a violation of his free speech rights when he was forcibly removed from a parole hearing after insulting the hearing officer, as well as cruel and unusual punishment based on guards' use of excessive force and nursing staff's refusal to treat his injuries, summary judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a prisoner is not engaged in protected conduct when he violates a legitimate prison regulation; 2) the prison guards used minimal force and plaintiff suffered minimal injuries when he was removed from the hearing room; and 3) plaintiff did not have an objectively serious medical need due to his minor injuries, and there was no deliberate indifference from the nursing staff since they checked up on the plaintiff twice after the incident.
[05/13] Union County, Iowa v. Piper Jaffray & Co., Inc.
In a diversity action wherein the district court certified an interlocutory appeal concerning a discovery order, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the district court abused its discretion in certifying the interlocutory appeal when the statutory requirements were not satisfied.
[05/13] Lash v. Hollis
In a civil rights action arising from injuries sustained during an arrest wherein jury awarded damages as well as attorney's fees, denial of a motion for a new damages-phase trial is affirmed, but the attorney's fees award is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the district court did not err in finding that plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to show that defendant's action in subduing him with a Taser induced or contributed to his rhabdomyolysis; 2) Missouri's sudden onset doctrine was inapplicable to underlying case, which involved multiple possible causes, rather than one alleged event preceding the harm; but 3) the record was unclear as to whether the district court considered the relationship between plaintiffs' successful and unsuccessful claims or overall degree of success obtained in determining the fee award.
[05/13] Roemmich v. Eagle Eye Dev., LLC
In an action brought by shareholder-plaintiff alleging various violations of his rights as a minority shareholder, partial summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty to a minority shareholder was time barred by North Dakota's statute of limitations; 2) the continuing wrong doctrine did not toll the limitations period; 3) there was no error in findings of fact concerning freeze-out of a minority shareholder, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair deprivation of reasonable expectations; and 4) in applying North Dakota state law, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees and expenses to defendant.
More...
|
