Case Summaries

Contracts

[11/19] McDonald v. Sun Oil Co.
In a suit arising out of the sale of a property containing a disused mercury mine, alleging negligence, contribution, breach of contract and fraud as a result of an alleged oral warranty that certain rock at the mine was free of mercury, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the state statute of repose did not render the negligence claim time-barred, because provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act amending state statute of limitations rules also applied to statutes of repose; 2) the contribution claim could not be brought without remedial action having been initiated by a state environmental agency; 3) the parol evidence rule was properly applied to find that the parties had reduced their entire agreement to writing and that no binding oral warranty existed; and 4) plaintiffs did not produce evidence of the alleged falsity of statements made by defendant.

[11/18] Dealer Computer Svcs., Inc. v. Dub Herring Ford
Following an arbitration decision granting award to defendant-dealerships and finding arbitration provisions found in various contracts between defendant-dealerships and plaintiff-computer software and hardware vendor did not preclude class arbitration, district court judgment in favor of defendant-dealerships is vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss where the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitration award because the matter was not ripe for judicial review.

[11/17] Native Am. Distrib. v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co.
In an breach of contract action between a distributor and an enterprise of a tribe, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed where: 1) the tribal enterprise has not waived its immunity; 2) the enterprise was not equitably estopped from asserting its immunity due to the misrepresentations of its managers; 3) the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction; and 4) the plaintiffs failed to allege a viable civil conspiracy claim against the individual defendants in their individual capacities.

[11/17] Seals v. General Motors Corp.
In an intentional tort claim action against defendant-employer General Motors for injuries suffered at defendant's metal stamping plant, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the release form signed by plaintiff-employee barred plaintiff's claim as a matter of law.

[11/17] The Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Holcim (US), Inc.
In a claim for contractual indemnification related to settlement of a tort claim, the court certified the following questions: 1) whether, under Alabama law, an indemnitee may enforce an indemnification provision and recover damages from an indemnitor resulting from the combined or concurrent fault or negligence of the indemnitee and indemnitor; and 2) whether, under Alabama law, a court may look behind (or beyond) the pleadings (in particular, the complaint) of an underlying tort action in determining the application of an indemnification provision between an indemnitor and indemnitee.

More...

Environmental Law

[11/20] Alaska Wilderness League v. Kempthorne
Upon a petition for review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) of the Minerals Management Service's approval of a plan to explore for oil in the Beaufort Sea, the approval is vacated and remanded where: 1) the agency did not meet its statutory obligation to take a "hard look" at the impacts of the proposal on bowhead whales and Inupiat subsistence activities; 2) the agency incorrectly determined that no environmental impact statement was required; and 3) the approval also violated OCSLA's requirements that the agency review and approve specific proposed well location and spacing.

[11/19] McDonald v. Sun Oil Co.
In a suit arising out of the sale of a property containing a disused mercury mine, alleging negligence, contribution, breach of contract and fraud as a result of an alleged oral warranty that certain rock at the mine was free of mercury, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the state statute of repose did not render the negligence claim time-barred, because provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act amending state statute of limitations rules also applied to statutes of repose; 2) the contribution claim could not be brought without remedial action having been initiated by a state environmental agency; 3) the parol evidence rule was properly applied to find that the parties had reduced their entire agreement to writing and that no binding oral warranty existed; and 4) plaintiffs did not produce evidence of the alleged falsity of statements made by defendant.

[11/19] Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Dist.
Denial of writ of mandate is reversed and defendant is ordered to complete an assessment on the public health impacts of the rule 4570, which requires large confined animal facilities to choose from a variety of mitigation measures with the goal of reducing VOC emissions, where: 1) rule 4570 was adopted without conducting an adequate assessment of its impact on public health, as mandated by Health and Safety Code section 40724.6; 2) section 40724.6 was intended to address the district's failure to meet federal and state ambient air quality standards for ozone and does not regulate ammonia emissions produced by large confined animal facilities; and 3) the district's findings were not arbitrary and capricious.

[11/19] O.W.L. Found. v. City of Rohnert Park
Grant of writ of mandate requiring defendant city to set aside its resolution adopting a water supply assessment (WSA) is reversed where: 1) a WSA need not analyze groundwater pumping by all users in an entire basin; 2) the relevant statute did not specify a particular methodology for a sufficiency analysis and in that respect affored the water supplier substantial discretion in determining how to measure groundwater sufficiency; and 3) defendant city acted well within its discretion in adopting the WSA.

[11/18] Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., LLC
In a suit against an electric utility and an air-quality-management district under the Clean Air Act, seeking to halt the construction of a power plant, denial of a preliminary injunction and dismissal with prejudice of all claims are affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of some claims presented the appellate court with a final order over which it had jurisdiction; and 2) the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[11/19] Poche v. Texas Air Corps, Inc.
In a Fair Labor Standards Act claim alleging that plaintiff was entitled to overtime wages, and also alleging numerous state-law claims, remand of case to state court is reversed where 28 U.S.C. section 1441(c) does not permit a district court to remand federal claims conferring removal jurisdiction, even where those claims are part of a case predominated by state law.

[11/19] Bregin v. Liquidebt Sys., Inc
In a suit alleging retaliatory discharge and tortious interference with employment, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not identify any illegal acts which he was asked to commit, for which a retaliation claim could be brought; 2) state law did not provide a whistleblower exception to the employment-at-will doctrine; and 3) plaintiff did not make out a claim for tortious interference.

[11/18] Stover v. Hattiesburg Pub. Sch. Dist.
In an employee's suit alleging race and sex discrimination, retaliation, and violation of the Equal Pay Act, judgment for defendant and denial of a new trial motion are affirmed where: 1) defendant was entitled to summary judgment on a constructive-discharge claim; 2) there was no reversible error in several challenged evidentiary rulings; 3) a "same actor" jury instruction was a correct statement of the law; and 4) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Award of attorney's fees is reversed as the award was improperly calculated and defendant was not entitled to attorney's fees.

[11/18] Phillips v. Mathews
In a suit alleging interference and retaliation by a state-government employer in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff had given proper notice to her employer that she required FMLA leave, but this disputed fact was not material since plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her termination was related to her FMLA leave; and 2) plaintiff had exercised rights under FMLA sufficient to subsequently bring a retaliation claim when she was terminated, but defendant demonstrated that she had been terminated for non-FMLA reasons.

[11/17] Alleyne v. American Airlines
Dismissal of discrimination claim brought pursuant to Title VII against defendant-employer is affirmed where plaintiff's claim of employment discrimination accrued for statute of limitations purposes on the date when plaintiff learned of his allegedly discriminatory loss of seniority, and not on the subsequent date of the neutral termination of his employment.

More...

Oil & Gas

[11/20] Alaska Wilderness League v. Kempthorne
Upon a petition for review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) of the Minerals Management Service's approval of a plan to explore for oil in the Beaufort Sea, the approval is vacated and remanded where: 1) the agency did not meet its statutory obligation to take a "hard look" at the impacts of the proposal on bowhead whales and Inupiat subsistence activities; 2) the agency incorrectly determined that no environmental impact statement was required; and 3) the approval also violated OCSLA's requirements that the agency review and approve specific proposed well location and spacing.

[11/19] McDonald v. Sun Oil Co.
In a suit arising out of the sale of a property containing a disused mercury mine, alleging negligence, contribution, breach of contract and fraud as a result of an alleged oral warranty that certain rock at the mine was free of mercury, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the state statute of repose did not render the negligence claim time-barred, because provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act amending state statute of limitations rules also applied to statutes of repose; 2) the contribution claim could not be brought without remedial action having been initiated by a state environmental agency; 3) the parol evidence rule was properly applied to find that the parties had reduced their entire agreement to writing and that no binding oral warranty existed; and 4) plaintiffs did not produce evidence of the alleged falsity of statements made by defendant.

[11/10] Omega Protein, Inc. v. Samson Contour Energy E & P LLC
In a marine limitation-of-liability case arising out of a collision between a fishing vessel and an oil platform, apportionment of fault equally between the parties is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not clearly err in its findings of fact or in the apportionment of fault; and 2) under the Limitation of Liability Act, plaintiff was entitled to limit its liability.

[10/28] Chihuahuan Grasslands Alliance
In an environmental suit involving the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) sale of oil and gas mineral leases on public lands in a grasslands area located in south-central New Mexico, defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' appeal of a ruling denying them declaratory and injunctive relief is granted where: 1) the BLM terminated the two leases at issue on appeal for nonpayment, leaving no case or controversy at issue and no meaningful grounds for relief; and 2) no mootness exception applied.

[10/16] In Re: Mystic Tank Lines Corp.
In a bankruptcy case, allowance of a state government's claim against debtor for damages for cleanup of contamination at a gas station is affirmed where: 1) the claim was subject to the police-power exception to the automatic stay against the pursuit of money judgments in bankruptcy cases; and 2) a state court had jurisdiction to enter a default judgment against debtor, notwithstanding that the state had already brought a related claim before the bankruptcy court.

More...

Class Actions

[11/20] Newark Parents Ass'n v. Newark Pub. Sch.
In a putative class action by parents of students alleging that defendant-school district was failing to live up to its obligations under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), dismissal of claims is affirmed where the notice and supplemental-education-services provisions of NCLBA did not confer a private right of action upon aggrieved individuals.

[11/19] Frank v. Dana Corp.
In a class-action securities claim alleging that corporate officers from defendant-company were responsible for intentional or reckless misstatements and material omissions which were calculated to artificially boost defendant's stock price, dismissal of complaint is vacated and remanded where the district court's application of the "most plausible" pleading standard derived from Helwig v. Vencor, Inc. was at odds with the Supreme Court's holding in Tellabs v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. that inferences of scienter that are "at least as compelling" as competing nonculpable inferences are sufficient for the complaint to survive a motion to dismiss.

[11/19] Shady Grove Orthopedic Assoc. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
In a class action claim for statutory penalties under section 5106(a) of New York insurance law against defendant-Allstate Insurance Company, grant of motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) section 901(b) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules may be applied in a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction and adjudicating claims under state law; and 2) section 5016(a) did not fall within the exception clause of section 901(b).

[11/14] H&R Block, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
Class actions filed against nationwide tax preparer H&R Block asserting a variety of statutory and common law claims arising out of H&R's Refund Anticipation Loan (RAL) program are excluded from "prior acts" coverage under professional liability "claims made" insurance policies because other class actions asserting similar claims were filed prior to the policy periods.

[10/14] Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc.
In a class action against defendant arising out of its uniform, wage, and break policies, judgment approving the terms of a settlement agreement is vacated and remanded upon the objection of a class member where the trial court did not sufficiently investigate the terms of the settlement to ensure that the consideration being received by the class members was fair, adequate, and reasonable.

More...