Case Summaries
[05/09]
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold and Easement etc.
In an action claiming that plaintiff has lost and is continuing to lose natural gas stored in its Elk Basin Storage Reservoir due to the operation of gas production wells owned by defendants, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the condemnation claim was properly dismissed, but on the ground that it failed to state a claim; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim; and 3) state law claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A natural gas company may not condemn additional property that is not specifically described in its existing certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN), even if the natural gas company seeks to acquire such property in order to operate and maintain an existing storage facility.
[05/08]
U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.
[05/07]
Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.
[05/07]
Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.510, subdivision (c), and the court's inherent authority to control its ministerial officers and other persons connected with a judicial proceeding in furtherance of justice, authorize the court to require a deposition reporter to provide a copy of a deposition transcript to a non-noticing party in a pending action for a reasonable fee which, in the absence of an agreement between the interested parties, may be set by the court upon a proper evidentiary showing.
[05/06]
Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.
[05/06]
Hadley v. Gutierrez
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action involving excessive force claims against defendants-police officers, an order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking qualified immunity is reversed in part where the district court erred in: 1) refusing to grant one defendant qualified immunity on plaintiff's excessive force claim; and 2) refusing to grant qualified immunity to both defendants on plaintiff's conspiracy claim.
More...
[05/08]
U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.
[05/07]
Trujillo v. PacifiCorp
In an action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ERISA, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and the case remanded where: 1) plaintiffs raised the necessary inference of discriminatory motive to establish a prima facie case of association discrimination through evidence that defendant monitored plaintiffs' son's health care costs, and that defendant was concerned to cut down on overall health care costs; 2) there was temporal proximity between the relapse of the plaintiff's son's cancer and the investigation by defendant for time theft; 3) defendant was not able to present a legitimate business reason since it treated similarly-situated employees differently; and 4) there were several irregularities in defendant's investigation of plaintiffs for time theft.
[05/07]
B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc.
In an antitrust case involving the legality of an agreement which established an exclusive network of preferred providers to supply types of medical equipment to enrollees in certain health-benefits plans offered to Chrysler, Ford, and state employees and retirees, a judgment and sanctions against plaintiff whose application to the network was rejected are affirmed, and appellate sanctions imposed, where: 1) plaintiff's antitrust claims lacked any conceivable merit; 2) a challenge to a discovery order failed; and 3) sanctions imposed below were not an abuse of discretion, and further, appellate sanctions were warranted.
[05/06]
Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.
[05/02]
Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
In a suit against 7-Eleven under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), summary judgment for 7-Eleven is affirmed in part, but vacated in part and remanded where: 1) the district court properly granted summary judgment to 7-Eleven on the issues of whether the store's aisle width and the store's refusal to allow him to access the employees-only restroom violated the ADA; but 2) contrary to the ruling below, plaintiff had standing to challenge the barriers to his wheelchair access in the 7-Eleven store that he learned about through his expert's site inspections. (Superseding opinion)
[05/01]
P.A. Bldg. Co. v. City of New York
In a landlord-tenant dispute involving whether asbestos abatement costs incurred by the landlord were "operating expenses" under the relevant terms of a commercial lease, judgment for landlord awarding additional rent due including amount of interest accrued is reversed and remanded where: 1) the underlying asbestos abatement costs were not "operating expenses" within the meaning of "escalation provisions" in the lease agreement; and 2) the interest amount on additional rent due should have been calculated from the date which an audit resisted by the landlord was finally commenced.
More...
[05/01]
Amerisource Corp. v. U.S.
A ruling that there was no compensable taking in the seizure of an innocent third party's property, which was never introduced as evidence in a criminal proceeding and was rendered worthless over the course of the proceedings, is affirmed where: 1) the government seized the goods pursuant to the police power and not for "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment; and 2) the innocence of the third party did not make the seizure of property under the police power a compensable taking.
[04/29]
In re: Subpoena in Collins
In an action against GlaxoSmithKline alleging the drug Paxil radically changed an individual's behavior and led him to take his own life, an order quashing a subpoena commanding a a Smithsonian employee to testify at a deposition is reversed and remanded where the federal government's claim to sovereign immunity does not apply to an employee's personal observations and opinions regarding a co-worker's behavior which are unrelated to the employee's official duties.
[04/24]
Ackermann v. Wyeth Pharm.
In case brought plaintiff-wife alleging that defendant failed to adequately warn about drug-induced risk of suicide from its drug Effexor, leading to her husband's suicide, summary judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where plaintiff failed to demonstrate causation under the learned-intermediary doctrine.
[04/18]
Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass'n v. Dist. of Columbia
In a suit to block a DC law that would require pharmacy benefit managers to act as fiduciaries, to disclose the content of their contracts with pharmacies and manufacturers, and to pass on any payments or discounts they receive from pharmacies or manufacturers, summary judgment for the District is vacated and remanded where the case involved unmixed questions of law and: 1) application of collateral estoppel would freeze the development of the law in an area of substantial public interest; and 2) the legal context changed subsequent to after the first decision.
[04/14]
BASF AG v. Great Am. Assurance Co.
In a suit seeking to recover damages from defendants-insurers for their failure to defend and indemnify plaintiff during a suit over the marketing of a synthetic thyroid drug, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed and remanded where the terms of the insurance policies, as a matter of law, did not obligate the insurers to defend or indemnify plaintiff.
[04/11]
Advocare Int'l LP v. Horizon Labs., Inc.
In a suit brought by a company that formulated and sold products for improving nutrition and weight loss, arising from underlying suits claiming personal injuries caused to users of products containing ephedra, a judgment primarily for plaintiff and third-party defendant-insurer is affirmed for the most part, but reversed in part as to one of two awards of punitive damages to plaintiff for a defendant's fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty. An award of prejudgment interest is vacated and remanded.
More...
Frequently Asked Questions
|
|
