News

Case Summaries

Contracts

[05/18] Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. US
In an action seeking damages to compensate for the cost of storing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste beyond the time that the government promised by contract to begin storing that waste in a permanent and secure repository, the Federal Circuit: 1) affirms a) the trial court's factual determination and award of damages based on an exchanges model, b) the trial court's determination regarding the deferred costs for loading waste to DOE, and c) the trial court's finding that the government could not assert that Greater Than Class C radioactive waste must be included in the SNF acceptance queue calculations; and 2) reverses the trial court's denial of wet storage pool costs and NRC fees.

[05/18] Oxford Aviation, Inc. v. Global Aerospace, Inc.
In an action brought by an insured seeking a declaratory judgment that its insurer was required to defend it in a suit for alleged faulty repair work performed for a client, the decision of the district court is vacated so far as it rejected a duty to defend, where: 1) some damage allegedly caused by the insured was within the coverage provision of the policy; and 2) none of the five exclusions in the policy negated the duty to defend.

[05/17] Fleisher v. Standard Insurance Co.
In a case in which a long-term disability (LTD) insurance provider reduced a dentist's monthly benefits by the amount of the monthly benefits he received under a separate LTD insurance policy, the district court's dismissal of the dentist's ERISA claim is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not err in determining that the arbitrary and capricious standard of review of the plan administrator's decision applied; 2) the plan administrator reasonably determined that the other policy fell within the meaning of "another group insurance coverage" and so amounts paid under it could reduce the amount the defendant insurer owed.

[05/16] Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Stolberg
In a suit by an insurer to obtain a declaration that its policy did not obligate it either to defend a personal injury suit or to indemnify the insured, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the insurer is affirmed, where: 1) the contract excluded coverage for injuries arising out of operations performed for insured by contractors; and 2) other exclusions in the policy did not create ambiguity so as to provide coverage.

[05/11] In re Redondo Construction Corp.
In three consolidated proceedings in bankruptcy court involving claims brought by the debtor construction company against the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority, the bankruptcy court's judgment is affirmed in all respects except for the calculation of extended overhead damages and the award of prejudgment interest, where: 1) the Authority's claim that the debtor lacked standing to include the work of certain subcontractors in its accounting was waived, but its other claims of error were preserved; 2) the debtor substantially complied with the contractual notice requirements for claims for extra compensation; 3) the award of Eichleay-based overhead damages was erroneous in some respects; and 4) remand on the calculation of prejudgment interest was necessary.

[05/11] Banco Popular de Puerto Rico v. Asociacion de Compositores y Editores de Musica Latinoamericana
In consolidated copyright infringement cases, the First Circuit holds that: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing a music publisher and its affiliate to litigate copyright infringement claims as to four songs used in live Christmas concerts produced by a bank, as those songs were not part of a settlement agreement; 2) the evidence of infringement was sufficient; 3) the district court did not err by twice denying the bank the opportunity to introduce certain evidence; 4) the district court correctly found that a publisher owned a song and that parties infringed its rights by retroactively licensing the performance rights to that song, and the award of damages was proper; and 5) the bank was not entitled to an offset or return of the monies it paid in performance fees for two songs.

More...

Environmental Law

[05/18] Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. US
In an action seeking damages to compensate for the cost of storing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste beyond the time that the government promised by contract to begin storing that waste in a permanent and secure repository, the Federal Circuit: 1) affirms a) the trial court's factual determination and award of damages based on an exchanges model, b) the trial court's determination regarding the deferred costs for loading waste to DOE, and c) the trial court's finding that the government could not assert that Greater Than Class C radioactive waste must be included in the SNF acceptance queue calculations; and 2) reverses the trial court's denial of wet storage pool costs and NRC fees.

[05/10] City of Malibu v. California Coastal Commission
In a case in which the California Coastal Commission rejected a city's local coastal program (LCP) amendment and certified an overlay district proposed by state agencies as an LCP amendment, the trial court's grant of petitions for writ of mandate seeking declaratory and injunctive relief is affirmed, as the Coastal Commission exceeded its jurisdiction, where the amendments were not requested to undertake a public works project or energy facility development, but instead changed the city's land use policies and development standards as they would apply to future plans for development within the city.

[05/03] North Carolina Wildlife Federation v. North Carolina Dep't of Transportation
In a suit by conservation groups against state and federal transportation agencies, arguing that the process by which the agencies approved a toll road violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the district court's grant of summary judgment to the agencies is vacated and the case remanded, where the agencies violated NEPA by failing to disclose critical assumptions underlying their decision to build the road and instead provided the public with incorrect information.

[04/26] Jamulians Against the Casino v. Iwasaki
In a case contesting CalTrans' execution of a settlement agreement with an Indian tribe that resolved federal litigation between those parties over application of CEQA to the tribe's efforts to upgrade its interchange on State Route 94 to allow for access to a proposed casino, the trial court's sustaining of a demurrer by Caltrans is reversed, where the trial court took judicial notice of a document's contents in ruling on the demurrer.

[04/26] Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District
In a petition proceeding in which plaintiffs maintained that an irrigation district failed to comply with CEQA in adopting regulations for the distribution of water, the trial court's judgment on the CEQA claim in favor of the district is affirmed, where: 1) appellate jurisdiction existed, even though certain other claims were dismissed without prejudice; 2) the regulations did not increase the priority preference that industrial users would receive over agricultural users in case of a water shortage; and 3) there was substantial evidence to support the district's implicit determination that its approval of a water supply contract with the owner of a new power plant did not constitute a substantial change in the circumstances under which the distribution plan was being implemented.

[04/26] Consolidated Irrigation District v. Superior Court (City of Selma)
In a proceeding brought under CEQA that challenged the City of Selma's approval of an environmental impact report (EIR) for a developer's proposed project: 1) a petition for writ of mandate is granted, reversing the trial court's denial of the petitioner's motion to augment the record of proceedings; and 2) the trial court's denial of the petitioner's discovery motion and its petition under the Public Records Act is affirmed.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[05/18] Crowther v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
In consolidated negligence actions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) against two railroad defendants brought by a former employee, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed, where: 1) no fact-finder could reasonably have inferred that the plaintiff first became aware of a work connection with his knee pain and neck injury within the period of limitation; 2) there was no error in entering judgment as a matter of law on negligence claims based on inadequate tools and failure to obtain ergonomic studies of the activities required to perform the plaintiff's various jobs; and 3) it was not reversible error to admit collateral source evidence that the plaintiff was receiving disability benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act.

[05/16] Fitzsimons v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group
In a suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) brought by a physician against a medical group of which she was a partner, alleging unlawful retaliation for opposing sexual harassment of an employee, the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant is reversed, where: 1) the harassment of the defendant's employees, if proven, was an unlawful practice for which the defendant would be liable; 2) FEHA made it an unlawful practice for the defendant to retaliate against any "person" for opposing that harassment; and 3) "person" includes a partner.

[05/16] People ex rel. Harris v. Sunset Car Wash, LLC
In a state action against a car wash, seeking to recover unpaid wages and penalties owed by a company that had operated a car wash at the same location before being evicted by the property owner, judgment in favor of the People is affirmed, where: 1) successor liability applied under Labor Code section 2066, as the plain meaning of "successor" is any entity defined in the four clauses of section 2066; 2) reliance on external definitions of "successor" would defeat the purpose of section 2066; and 3) section 2066 provides the necessary notice of the potential for successor liability for labor law violations, and so does not violate due process.

[05/15] Harman Mining Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, DOL
In a case in which an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that a man suffered disabling obstructive lung disease arising out of his work as a coal miner and awarded his widow black lung benefits payable by his former employer, a petition for review is denied, where the award of benefits found support in the record and accorded with the Administrative Procedure Act, as the ALJ properly evaluated the appropriate weight to accord conflicting medical opinions.

[05/14] Cash v. Winn
In a suit for overtime wages brought by an in-home caretaker who was not a licensed or trained nurse, judgment in favor of the plaintiff is reversed, where: 1) the plaintiff performed the duties of a personal attendant and did not spend more than 20 percent of her weekly work time performing other duties, and so was exempt from overtime; and 2) a "regular administration of health care services" exception does not exist under California law as applied to a household employee who is not licensed or trained to perform nursing or other medical services.

[05/10] NLRB v. Starbucks Corp.
In a case alleging various unfair labor practices on the part of an employer, its cross-petition for review of the NLRB's affirmance of an ALJ decision is granted insofar as the NLRB concluded that: 1) the employer's policy of allowing employees to wear only one union button violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act; and 2) the discharge of two employees violated section 8(a)(3) of the Act, with remand necessary as to one employee for determination of whether an employee's outburst in which obscenities are used in the presence of customers loses otherwise available protection if the employee is off duty although on the employer’s premises.

More...

Oil & Gas

More...

Class Actions

[05/16] In re Schering Plough Corp.
In consolidated putative class actions brought by third-party payors of drugs prescribed for off-label purposes and by individual patients against a drug company that conducted alleged illegal and false sales and marketing campaigns, the district court's dismissal of both actions for lack of standing is affirmed, where: 1) the third-party payor plaintiff did not establish that its alleged injury was fairly traceable to the defendant's alleged wrongful conduct; and 2) the individual plaintiff failed to adequately allege causation.

[05/08] Aleksick v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
In a class action challenge to the practice of a payroll services provider in converting any partial hour worked in a pay period from minutes to hundredths of an hour, thereby shorting employees of a few seconds of time and commensurate pay, summary judgment to the defendant is affirmed, where: 1) the complaint did not allege any statutory predicate for the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim of unlawfulness, and the plaintiff did not seek leave to amend, so the principle of forfeiture applied; and 2) even without forfeiture, the plaintiff could not pursue UCL claims for unlawfulness or unfairness because the Labor Code wage statutes govern the employee-employer relationship, and undisputed evidence showed the defendant was not the class members' employer.

[05/04] Liu v. Amerco
In a class action suit alleging that U-Haul had engaged in an attempted price-fixing scheme in violation of state consumer protection law, the district court's dismissal is vacated, where: 1) diversity jurisdiction existed, since the amount in controversy as to the class would likely exceed $5,000,000; 2) the alleged acts violated the state law; and 3) the plaintiff adequately pled causation of damages.

[05/01] Casey v. Merck & Co.
In litigation involving product liability claims for injuries allegedly caused by a prescription drug manufactured by the defendant, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed, where the plaintiffs' actions were untimely under Virginia's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, since the Supreme Court of Virginia determined that: 1) there is no authority in Virginia jurisprudence for the equitable tolling of a statute of limitations based upon the pendency of a putative class action in another jurisdiction; and 2) Va. Code Ann. section 8.01-229(E)(1) does not toll the statute of limitations for unnamed putative class members due to the pendency of a putative class action in another jurisdiction.

[04/25] Kinecta Alternative Financial Solutions Inc. v. Superior Court (Malone)
In a putative class action alleging wage and hour violations by an employer, in which the defendant moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's individual claims, alleging failure to pay overtime and provide rest and meal periods, and to dismiss the class claims, it is held that: 1) the plaintiff did not provide evidence establishing that the provision authorizing only bilateral arbitration was unenforceable or that classwide arbitration was required; and 2) the parties' arbitration agreement did not authorize class arbitration, so the order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss class claims without prejudice had to be reversed.

[04/24] In re Lupron Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
In a case in which a class of medical patient consumers alleged fraud in overcharging for the medication Lupron, and a small dissident group within the class settled, got a full recovery, and then sought more from the unclaimed class settlement funds, the district court's distribution of the cy pres fund to charitable organizations is affirmed, where: 1) the appeals were timely; 2) the appellants had standing; but 3) there was no abuse of discretion in the distribution process used or as to selection of the recipients.

More...