News

Case Summaries

Contracts

[03/17] Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
In an action seeking car rental costs from an insurer arising out of an auto accident, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where, under California law, an insurer is permitted to recoup a payout from a third-party tortfeasor's insurance company before the insured has sued the third-party tortfeasor, and without first making the insured whole.

[03/17] Buck v. Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch.
In plaintiff's lawsuit against her former law school claiming violation of the ADA and breach of various implied contracts, arising from her dismissal from the law school for falling below the required minimum G.P.A. of 2.0, dismissal of the lawsuit is affirmed where plaintiff is precluded by res judicata from raising the claims at issue as she should have supplemented her complaint in state court with claims that arose during the pendency of that suit.

[03/16] Pendergest-Holt v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
In an action by various insureds, including R. Allen Stanford, each faced with civil and criminal allegations that they engaged in a massive Ponzi scheme, seeking reimbursement of defense costs under a directors' and officers' liability policy from the policy's underwriters, an injunction prohibiting defendant-insurers from withholding defense funds is affirmed with modifications and remanded, and the underwriters are enjoined from refusing to advance defense costs as provided for in the D&O Policy unless and until a court "determine[s] in fact" by clear and convincing evidence "that the alleged act or alleged acts [of Money Laundering] did in fact occur."

[03/15] Catlin Syndicate Ltd. v. Imperial Palace of Miss., Inc.
In a declaratory judgment action by an insurer seeking a declaration that the policy did not cover certain Hurricane Katrina-related losses, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where the proper method for determining loss under the business-interruption provision was to look at sales before the interruption rather than sales after the interruption.

[03/15] Sullivan v. Leor Energy LLC
In an action for breach of an employment contract, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) under Texas law, a contract for a stated term longer than one year is not taken out of the statute of frauds when there is a mere possibility of termination within one year due to contingent events set forth in the contract, including termination by a party; 2) payment of a salary for services rendered was insufficient to take the alleged agreement out of the statute of frauds because the services were fully explained by the salary without supposing any additional consideration; and 3) plaintiff's equitable estoppel claim failed because he did not allege reliance damages.

More...

Environmental Law

[03/15] Communities for a Better Env't v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.
In plaintiffs' suit against ConocoPhillips and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (District), for failing to prepare an EIR before approving a refinery project, judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as neither the statute of limitations, nor principles of vested rights, nor the CEQA case law on which ConocoPhillips and the District rely, justified employing as an analytical baseline for a new project the maximum capacity allowed under prior equipment permits, rather than the physical conditions actually existing at the time of analysis. Therefore, the District abused its discretion in determining the project at issue would have no significant environmental effects compared to a baseline of maximum permitted capacity.

[03/10] Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist. v. American Int'l Specilaty Lines Ins. Co.
In a sewerage district's suit for damages against an environmental liability insurer for denying coverage for costs incurred by the district in removing significant pollution on land it recently purchased, district court's judgment is reversed and remanded as the district court's finding that there was clear and convincing proof that a prior agreement existed between the insurance company and the sewerage district that the parcel would be covered property was clearly erroneous. Therefore, defendant is entitled to judgment on the sewerage district's reformation claim and, as a consequence, judgment in favor of defendant on its indemnity claim is vacated.

[03/09] Native Ecosystems Council v. Tidwell
In an action challenging the Forest Service's approval of a project to update grazing allotments in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) because the Forest Service's environmental assessment was based on a nonexistent management indicator species, its habitat proxy analysis was not reliable; and 2) the Forest Service failed to take the requisite "hard look" at the project as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

[03/08] Kane Cty. v. US
In an appeal from the denial of plaintiffs' motion to intervene in an action brought by Kane County, Utah, to quiet title to several purported rights-of-way across federal public lands, the order is affirmed where: 1) even assuming plaintiffs had an interest in the quiet title proceedings at issue, plaintiffs failed to establish that the U.S. could not adequately represent plaintiffs' interest; and 2) the denial of permissive intervention was not arbitrary and capricious.

[03/08] Morris v. US Nuclear Reg. Comm'n.
In a petition for review of a license granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct in situ leach mining for uranium on four sites in northwest New Mexico, the petition is denied where: 1) the clear language of 10 C.F.R. section 20.1301(a)(1) supported the NRC's decision to focus only on the licensed operation; 2) the National Environmental Policy Act did not prohibit approval of projects with negative cumulative effects; it only required that the agency consider and disclose such effects; and 3) there was no evidence in the administrative record to support petitioners' assertion that the NRC based its adoption of the nine-pore-volume restoration effort on economic reasons.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[03/17] Service Employees Int'l. Union v. US
In an appeal of the IRS's assessment of penalties for the late filing of a return, a district court's order reducing the assessed penalty is reversed where penalties on tax exempt organizations for late filing of informational returns may not be reduced by district courts as a matter of discretion.

[03/16] Acevedo v. Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc.
In a class action against defendant-employer, seeking payment of unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the district court's ruling that plaintiffs' claims were improperly joined is affirmed where district courts have considerable discretion to deny joinder when it would not facilitate judicial economy and when different witnesses and documentary proof would be required for plaintiffs' claims. However, dismissal of the action is reversed where misjoinder was not an appropriate ground for dismissal.

[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.

[03/16] McBride v. CSX Transp. Inc.
In plaintiff's action under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA) seeking compensation for injuries he sustained while performing switching operations for his employer, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) common law proximate causation is not required to establish liability under the FELA; and 2) district court did not commit instructional error refusing defendant's proffered instruction and giving the causation instruction to the jury instead as it correctly and completely informed the jury of the applicable law.

[03/15] Sullivan v. Leor Energy LLC
In an action for breach of an employment contract, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) under Texas law, a contract for a stated term longer than one year is not taken out of the statute of frauds when there is a mere possibility of termination within one year due to contingent events set forth in the contract, including termination by a party; 2) payment of a salary for services rendered was insufficient to take the alleged agreement out of the statute of frauds because the services were fully explained by the salary without supposing any additional consideration; and 3) plaintiff's equitable estoppel claim failed because he did not allege reliance damages.

More...

Oil & Gas

[03/15] Communities for a Better Env't v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.
In plaintiffs' suit against ConocoPhillips and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (District), for failing to prepare an EIR before approving a refinery project, judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as neither the statute of limitations, nor principles of vested rights, nor the CEQA case law on which ConocoPhillips and the District rely, justified employing as an analytical baseline for a new project the maximum capacity allowed under prior equipment permits, rather than the physical conditions actually existing at the time of analysis. Therefore, the District abused its discretion in determining the project at issue would have no significant environmental effects compared to a baseline of maximum permitted capacity.

[03/10] US v. Valencia
Defendants' wire fraud convictions arising from alleged efforts to manipulate natural gas markets are affirmed where: 1) the extensive, incriminating in-court testimony provided by a witness and others, in conjunction with inculpatory, properly admitted exhibits, heavily dampened the magnitude of whatever prejudicial effect an erroneously admitted whistle-blower letter had upon the jury; 2) because a witness's knowledge and analysis were derived from duties he held at defendants' employer, his opinions were admissible as testimony based upon personal knowledge and experience gained while employed there; 3) the district court did not err in allowing the government's expert to testify about the tendency of defendants' false trade reports to affect the indices published by Inside FERC and NGI.

[03/04] MacClarence v. EPA
In a petition for review of the EPA's order denying petitioner's request that the EPA object to the issuance of a Clean Air Act Title V permit for pollutant-emitting activities at an oil and gas processing facility, the petition is denied where: 1) the EPA Administrator's conclusion that petitioner failed to provide adequate information to support his claim that the entire facility should be aggregated was not arbitrary or capricious; and 2) the Administrator's order denying the petition properly set forth petitioner's burden under 42 U.S.C. section 7661d(b)(2), stating that "to justify exercise of an objection by EPA to a title V permit pursuant to section 7661d(b)(2), a petitioner must demonstrate that the permit is not in compliance with the requirements of the CAA" and later concluding that "the general allegations of the Petitioner in the April 2004 Petition . . . fail to demonstrate a basis for Petitioner's claim that Revision 1 to the GC 1 Permit violates the CAA . . . ."

[03/02] Mac's Shell Serv., Inc. v. Shell Oil Prods. Co.
In an action under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (Act) by service station franchisees, alleging that a petroleum franchisor, Shell, and its assignee had constructively terminated their franchises and constructively failed to renew their franchise relationships by substantially changing the rental terms that the dealers had enjoyed for years, increasing costs for many of them, a circuit court's order partially affirming judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where a franchisee who signs and operates under a renewal agreement with a franchisor may not maintain a constructive nonrenewal claim under the Act. However, the court of appeals' order is reversed in part where a franchisee cannot recover for constructive termination under the Act if the franchisor's allegedly wrongful conduct did not compel the franchisee to abandon its franchise.

[02/26] Resolute Natural Resources Co. v. FERC
In a petition for review of certain orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) declining to investigate allegedly anticompetitive conduct by a refining company involving oil pipelines in New Mexico, the petition is dismissed where FERC decisions not to investigate were not subject to review.

More...

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.

[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.

[03/02] Orosco v. Napolitano
In an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus to compel defendants to issue him a law enforcement certification showing his cooperation with law enforcement under 28 U.S.C. section 2241, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the language of section 1184(p) made it abundantly clear that the decision to issue a law enforcement certification is a discretionary one.

[03/02] Rutti v. Vermillion
In a class action on behalf of all technicians employed by defendant to install alarms in customers' cars, in which plaintiff sought compensation for the time technicians spent commuting to worksites in defendant's vehicles and for time spent on preliminary and postliminary activities performed at their homes, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) pursuant to the Employment Commuter Flexibility Act, use of an employer's vehicle to commute was not compensable even if it was a condition of employment; and 2) the conditions defendant placed on plaintiff's use of its vehicle did not make his commute compensable. However, the judgment is vacated in part where, on summary judgment, the district court could not determine that plaintiff's postliminary activities were not integral to plaintiff's principal activities.

[03/02] Pfizer v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' action against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law claiming that Pfizer marketed the mouthwash in a misleading manner by representing that the use of it can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis, defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn an order certifying the class action is granted as the ruling certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period is overbroad, and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), does not require a different disposition in this case.

More...