Legal News

Case Summaries

Constitutional Law

[03/15] MHC Fin. Ltd. P'ship Two v. City of Santee
In plaintiff's suit against a city concerning the city's mobilehome rent control ordinances, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as the court properly ruled that plaintiff was not entitled to damages where: 1) plaintiff has not established that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff did not suffer any legally remediable injury due to the retroactive application of the ordinance at issue; and 2) trial court correctly ruled that plaintiff may not recover damages for the city's violation of its right to petition under the California Constitution.

[03/15] D.C. v. R.R.
In a suit brought by a 15-year-old high student and his parents against other students and their parents, raising a statutory claim under California's hate crime laws and common law claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, trial court's denial of a defendant's anti-SLAPP motion is affirmed as defendant failed to demonstrate that his posted message on plaintiff's website is protected speech and that it was made in connection with a public issue.

[03/15] Dermer v. Miami-Dade County
In a First Amendment challenge to a county ordinance prohibiting any false statement concerning the contents or effect of any petition for initiative, referendum, or recall, partial summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the ordinance because he failed to submit any detail, such as when, where, or how he intended to exercise his right to free speech in the future, that illuminated the specifics of his claimed injury; and 2) plaintiff's claim was not ripe because his allegations contained no factual specificity and, therefore, did not demonstrate a credible threat of prosecution.

[03/12] Stockwell v. City of Harvey
In white firefighters' suit against a city claiming that it failed to promote them within its fire department because of their race, summary judgment in favor of the city is affirmed where: 1) the city, through its fire chief, has set forth legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for declining to promote the plaintiffs to deputy and/or assistant chief; and 2) plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the reasons were pretextual.

[03/12] News & Observer Publ'g. Co. v. Raleigh-Durham Airport Auth.
In newspaper publishers' First Amendment challenge to a public airport's total ban on newspaper racks inside its terminals, grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed as the government interests asserted to justify the total ban do not counterbalance its significant restriction on protected expression.

More...

Civil Procedure

[03/15] Service Employees Int'l Union v. Nat'l Union of Healthcare Workers
In an action by a parent and local affiliate union seeking injunctive relief to obtain restoration of properties it alleged were illegally taken by the former officers and leaders of the local union, who formed a rival union, the district court's grant of a temporary restraining order (TRO) is affirmed where: 1) the TRO was an appealable order and thus the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review it; 2) in its subsequent preliminary injunction, the district court explicitly preserved a portion of the TRO as still effective after issuance of the injunction, so the appeal was not moot; and 3) the district court's jurisdiction was proper under 29 U.S.C. section 185(a) because providing a federal forum for injunctive relief against the former officers and leaders of the union promoted the stability of the parent-local relationship and the representation of rank-and-file members.

[03/15] Grothenhuis v. County of Santa Barbara
Following a county's denial of trustee-plaintiff's appeal for an assessment reduction and tax refund, the trial court's tax refund judgment in favor of the trustee is reversed as the corporate alter ego theory, which is generally used to prevent a fraud and impute liability, like "only in narrowly defined circumstances and only when the ends of justice so require," and here, plaintiff cites no authority that the corporate alter ego theory may be invoked to gain a tax advantage in violation of section 69.5.

[03/12] Serafinn v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 722
In plaintiff's action against his local union and the joint council claiming that they impaired his free speech and assembly rights, fined him, and suspended his union membership without due process, grant of summary judgment to the joint council and jury's ruling against the local in favor of the plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) local's claims of error fail because they dispute jury instructions either that actually benefited it or for which the local waived any challenge; 2) plaintiff's cross-appeal of the district court's denial of relief from summary judgment fails because the new evidence he asks for consideration is cumulative; 3) plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding his attorneys' fees award fails because he neglected to refute the district court's reasons in crafting it; and 4) the parties' remaining claims are without merit.

[03/12] In Re: Kirkland
District court's determination that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to determine the post-petition interest and collection costs to which the creditor was entitled as the result of a default on a student loan that occurred after the Chapter 13 estate was closed and the debtor discharged is reversed as the district court erred in concluding that the bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction over the issues.

[03/11] Cent. Concrete Supply Co. Inc. v. Bursak
In plaintiff's suit against an attorney claiming that he conspired with his client to defraud plaintiff, grant of plaintiff's leave to amend in response to the attorney's successful challenge that the complaint failed to allege compliance with the prefiling requirement under Civ Code section 1714.10(a) is affirmed as, in appropriate circumstances, a trial court may permit an amendment of the complaint after sustaining a demurrer based on section 1714.10.

More...

Workers' Comp

[03/05] Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.

[03/03] City of Laguna Beach v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n
In a city's action against an insurance company seeking reimbursement for incurring workers' compensation liability that exceeded its self-insured retention, grant of insurance company's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the addition of subdivision (c)(13) to Ins. Code section 1063.1 did not abrogate Denny's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 104 Cal.App.4th 1433 (2003); 2) the trial court properly invoked the Denny's rule when it granted summary judgment and concluded that the city cannot obtain reimbursement from defendant under section 1063.1(c)(13) as, although this provision renders the obligation of an insolvent excess workers' compensation insurer a "covered claim" that defendant must ordinarily reimburse, defendant need not reimburse a permissibly self-insured employer for benefits paid to an employee for cumulative injury if the employer's liability is based in part on a period of time when the employer was self-insured and chose not to buy excess insurance for the particular risk.

[02/26] Lara v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision against the petitioner and in favor of the defendant is affirmed as, the petitioner, hired twice in the space of 12 months to prune bushes for a diner, was not an employee of the diner at the time he sustained injury, but rather, he was an independent contractor exempt from workers' compensation coverage.

[02/26] Elliott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Decision of the WCAB that plaintiff's employer was not obligated to provide the requested spinal surgery is reversed and remanded as, in light of its en banc decision in Cervantes v. El Aguila Food Products, Inc. (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1336 explicitly denouncing the Brasher holding relied on by the WCAB in this case, the employer is ordered to authorize the requested surgery or object to the treating physician's recommendation under 4062(b) within 10 days of receipt of this order, thereby commencing the spinal surgery second opinion process.

[02/12] Conley v. Nat'l Mines Corp.
Order of the Benefits Review Board reversing an Administrative Law Judge's award of black lung benefits on a widow's claim filed by petitioner under the Black Lung Benefits Act after her husband died of metastatic lung cancer is affirmed as the Board did not err in concluding that the decedent's treating physician's opinion was insufficient to carry the widow's burden of proof, based on the standard previously articulated in Eastover Mining Co. v. Williams, 338 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2003).

More...

Commercial Law

[03/15] Kim v. Carter's Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against a children's clothing retailer for damages under Illinois contract and consumer protection law, claiming they were victims of deceptive pricing, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, defendant has fulfilled its obligations under the straightforward, everyday sales contract described in the complaint; and 2) plaintiffs' allegations fail to establish the actual damages element of their Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA) claim.

[03/11] Coyote Publishing, Inc. v. Miller
In a facial First Amendment challenge to restrictions on advertising by legal brothels, summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where the advertising restrictions targeted pure commercial speech, and there were strong reasons why the sale of sexual services, in particular, ought to be treated differently than other advertising bans on "vice" activities.

[03/10] American Signature, Inc. v. US
In proceedings involving an importer of furniture that is subject to a 2005 antidumping duty order on certain entries of wooden bedroom furniture from China, a decision of the Court of International Trade denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is reversed as plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction, and therefore, the Court of International Trade is directed to grant the preliminary injunction prohibiting Customs or Commerce from taking any action to liquidate or reliquidate import entries that are the subject of this action.

[03/10] Fortis Corp. Ins. SA. v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS
In a maritime shipping case involving a claim for rust damage to steel coils caused by exposure to seawater during a journey from Poland to Ohio, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) a ship manager charged with providing a Master, officers and crew, and performing various other ship-management tasks for the shipping vessel does not qualify as a "carrier" under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), and thus the COGSA's one year-statute of limitations does not bar the underlying suit; and 2) defendant's claim that the district court's finding of negligence was based on clearly erroneous factual findings is rejected.

[03/10] Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd.
In an appeal from a district court's order granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoining defendant from proceeding with an arbitration initiated against plaintiff before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the order is affirmed where the "serious questions" standard for assessing a movant's likelihood of success on the merits remains valid in the wake of recent Supreme Court cases, and neither the district court's assessment of the facts nor its application of the law supported a finding of abuse of discretion.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[03/15] D.C. v. R.R.
In a suit brought by a 15-year-old high student and his parents against other students and their parents, raising a statutory claim under California's hate crime laws and common law claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, trial court's denial of a defendant's anti-SLAPP motion is affirmed as defendant failed to demonstrate that his posted message on plaintiff's website is protected speech and that it was made in connection with a public issue.

[03/15] Kim v. Carter's Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against a children's clothing retailer for damages under Illinois contract and consumer protection law, claiming they were victims of deceptive pricing, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, defendant has fulfilled its obligations under the straightforward, everyday sales contract described in the complaint; and 2) plaintiffs' allegations fail to establish the actual damages element of their Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA) claim.

[03/15] N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.
In an action by a barge operator against an insurer for defense costs associated with Hurricane Katrina-related damages, the district court's order (1) dismissing all causes of action brought against defendant, (2) granting plaintiff the fees and expenses of two of the three law firms it retained to defend Katrina-related actions, and (3) denying plaintiff's motion to transfer and its application for attorneys' fees, is affirmed in part where: 1) the locus of operative facts as well as the interests of efficiency and fairness favored a New York forum; 2) the term "otherwise" in the insurance policy did not include the kind of relationship associated with a shipowner's bailment to a terminal operator, which was at issue in this case; 3) plaintiff did not have a right to pursue independent counsel to defend the Katrina actions whose legal fees would be covered by the primary policy; 4) because summary judgment in favor of defendant was warranted based on the simple non-coverage of the barge under the policy, and because there was no dispute that the primary policy had been exhausted, the excess policy applied to cover expenses in excess of the primary policy's limits. However, the order is vacated in part where coverage for fees earned by both counsel, either as excess to defendant's primary policy or as initial coverage for plaintiff's independent counsel, was intended pursuant to the umbrella coverage provided by the excess policy.

[03/12] Alexander v. Cahill
In a First Amendment challenge to attorney advertising rules issued by the New York Appellate Division barring, inter alia, testimonials from clients relating to pending matters, portrayals of judges or fictitious law firms, attention-getting techniques unrelated to attorney competence, and trade names or nicknames that imply an ability to get results, and establishing a thirty-day moratorium for targeted solicitation following a specific incident, including targeted ads on television or in other media, summary judgment order invalidating most of the content-based restrictions and upholding the thirty-day moratorium is affirmed in part where the content-based restrictions in the disputed provisions regulated commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the prohibition on advertising mentioning fictitious firms was valid because it targeted potentially misleading advertising; and 2) as to the moratorium, there was a substantial state interest in protecting the privacy and tranquility of personal injury victims and their loved ones against intrusive, unsolicited contact by lawyers.

[03/11] Granfield v. CSX Transp., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against his employer in violations of the Federal Employer's Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Ac, claiming that he developed "tennis elbow" as a result of having to manipulate defective controls in the cabin of his locomotive, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a reasonable jury could have concluded that plaintiff's claim was not time barred, had defendant chosen to contest this showing by asking the jury instruction and arguing the matter to the jury; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a doctor as an expert on the issue of causation; 3) brief statements by a witness as to the contents of a letter was harmless error; and 4) plaintiff's counsel's statements in closing arguments were adequately dealt with by the district judge's instructions and no plain error occurred.

More...