Case Summaries

Administrative Law

[09/02] Bale Chevrolet Co. v. US
In a petition for review of intentional disregard penalties issued against petitioner for failing to file required Forms 8300 information returns with the IRS, the petition is denied where the government's positions were substantially justified.

[09/02] Galindo-Romero v. Holder
In a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing petitioner's appeal of an Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision terminating his formal removal proceedings, the petition is dismissed where the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits of petitioner's petition for review because the decisions of the BIA and IJ resulted in no final order of removal.

[09/02] Camacho-Cruz v. Holder
In a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of cancellation of removal because of petitioner's conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under Nevada state law, the petition is dismissed where petitioner’s conviction was categorically a crime of violence.

[09/01] Morse v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.
In plaintiff's action claiming that the Transportation Security Administration violated his veterans' preference rights when it declined to waive its maximum entry age requirement in connection with his application for employment as a Federal Air Marshal, the Merit Systems Protection Board's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed as the TSA is exempt from section 3330(a) of Title 5, which provides Board appeal rights for preference eligible veterans.

More...

Aerospace & Defense

[06/23] Rectrix Aerodrome Ctrs., Inc. v. Barnstable Mun. Airport Comm'n
In plaintiff's suit against an airport commission and individual defendants, claiming that it was prevented from competing with defendant in the sale of jet fuel, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's fraud claim fails as plaintiff was a commercial tenant of the airport and, given the self-service standards and lease terms, had no right and no reasonable expectation of being able to sell jet fuel at the airport; 2) the antitrust claim is barred by the state action doctrine given the Massachusetts statute; and 3) plaintiff's equal protection claim under section 1983 fails as no private entity at the airport has the privilege sought by plaintiff.

[06/23] Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. US Airways Group
In an airline pilots union's suit to establish and arbitrate before a multi-employer, multi-union board of adjustment, district court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed as plaintiff's claim is foreclosed by the plain language of section 204 of the Railway Labor Act, which permits but does not require such a board adjustment, and plaintiff's alternative state law claim is meritless.

[06/08] Turner v. NTSB
In pilots' petition for review of the National Transportation Safety Board's order reversing an attorney's fee award to petitioners against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in a pilot's license revocation proceeding, the petition is denied where: 1) because the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the cases without prejudice, there was nothing in this case analogous to judicial relief; 2) the pilots are not prevailing parties for purposes of 5 U.S.C. section 504(a)(1), and thus, they are not entitled to recover their attorneys fees and expenses under that section; and 3) petitioners could not recover under section 504(a)(4) because the FAA did not prevail.

More...

Banking Law

[08/31] Force Framing, Inc. v. Chinatrust Bank
In plaintiff's suit against defendant-lender for a bonded stop notice, trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment because plaintiff served the statutorily required 20-day preliminary notice on another lender, and not defendant, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment because there is a triable issue of fact regarding the reasonableness of plaintiff's belief that another lender was the lender for the project; 2) defendant's argument that plaintiff could not have held a good faith belief that the other lender was the actual lender because plaintiff did not check the county records for the deed of trust that the lender recorded in 2005 is rejected; and 3) the court is not persuaded that, as a matter of law, pursuant to Kodiak, plaintiff had constructive notice that defendant was the actual lender and could not have held a good faith belief that the other lender was the actual lender.

[08/30] Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Savings Bank
In plaintiff's suit for breach of contract against defendant-bank for nonpayment of fees under the parties' Technology Outsourcing Agreement, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) an expert's testimony was both relevant and reliable; 2) district court correctly determined that plaintiff did not breach the Agreement's performance warranty and its duty of good faith; 3) district court did not err in concluding that any reliance by defendant on the alleged misrepresentations of plaintiff was not reasonable; 3) district court committed no reversible error in determining that defendant's fraud claims were without merit; 4) district court determined correctly that defendant's success on the in-house issue does not render it a "prevailing party" within the meaning of the contract; and 5) the district court acted within the bounds of its discretion in determining that no additional guarantee of reasonableness was required.

[08/30] Lechoslaw v. Bank of America
In plaintiff's suit against a bank for damages, claiming that a four-and-a-half month delay in receiving his $31,787.34 disrupted the construction of a motel and restaurant in Poland and caused him severe emotional distress, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proving that the Bank in Poland met the requirements for the exercise of personal jurisdiction, and trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Bank did not waive its defense of lack of personal jurisdiction; 2) there was no abuse of discretion on the facts in the court's exclusion of the statement as offered against Bank of America (BoA); 3) there was no evidence that BoA violated chapter 93A in any of its dealings with plaintiff, and the district court properly entered judgment in its favor; and 4) it was not an abuse of discretion for the courts not to reopen discovery according to the Hague Convention.

[08/27] Jefferson State Bank v. Lenk
In an estate administrator's suit against a bank to recover money as a result of unauthorized transactions, approximately two years before she was appointed as the administrator, judgment of the court of appeals' is reversed and judgment is rendered in favor of the bank as the statute of repose in section 4.406 of the Business and Commerce Code bars the administrator's claims because she failed to notify the bank of any unauthorized transactions within sixty days of being appointed estate administrator.

More...

Commercial Law

[09/01] Hollander v. Copacabana Nightclub
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought against several New York City nightclubs for discriminating against men on “Ladies’ Nights," dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the nightclubs were not state actors and thus were not subject to section 1983.

[08/31] Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp.
In an action seeking to attach defendant's property in New York as pre-judgment security for a pending arbitration in Hong Kong, dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court did not err in declining to fashion an equitable remedy in circumstances where it was clear that the original attachment order could not be sustained in light of Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009).

[08/30] Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiff's patent infringement suit related to two types of digital storage devices, recordable discs (CD-Rs) and rewritable compact discs (CD-RWs), claiming that defendant was violating section 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing CD-Rs and CD-RWs that infringed its patents, the International Trade Commission's decision that the doctrine of patent misuse does not bar intervenor-U.S. Philips Corporation from enforcing its patent rights against defendant is affirmed as, even if Phillips and Sony engaged in an agreement not to license the patent at issue for non-Orange-Book purposes, that hypothesized agreement had no bearing on the physical or temporal scope of the patents in suit, nor did it have anti-competitive effects in the relevant market. Therefore, the asserted agreement between Phillips and Sony did not constitute misuse and cannot justify rendering all of Phillips' Orange Book patents unenforceable.

[08/30] Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Chimet, S.P.A.
In Delta Airlines' suit for declaratory judgment seeking to limit its liability for losing approximately 100 kilograms of pure platinum shipped from Italy to Pennsylvania, district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is affirmed as the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant's motion to dismiss as the private interest factors affecting the convenience of the litigants and the public interest factors affecting the convenience of the forum weighed in favor of litigating this dispute in Italy.

More...

Contracts

[09/02] Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nat'l. Union Ins. Co.
In an action by one insurer against another seeking $10 million in subrogation proceeds, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff waived certain rights by refusing repeated invitations to participate in subrogation discussions. However, the judgment is reversed in part where, as the excess insurer, plaintiff was entitled to a priority interest in the subrogation proceeds representing insured losses.

[09/02] Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Inc.
In a suit for common law trade dress of a French-press coffee maker known as the Chambord, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as, Article 4 of the parties' contract is clear and precise as it allows defendant to sell the coffee maker design anywhere except France - provided that it does not use the Chambord or Melior names and does not use plaintiff's supply channels for four years.

[09/02] Atlantic Nat'l Trust LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.
In an action seeking insurance proceeds arising from a fire, defendants' appeal from the grant of plaintiff's motion to remand is dismissed where the court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review a federal district court order remanding a case to state court based on a ground colorably characterized as a "defect" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c).

[09/01] US ex rel. SNAPP v. Ford Motor Co.
District court's denial of plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint concluding that the proposed amended complaint, which included a list of contracts that the government allegedly entered into as a result of fraudulent representations on the part of Ford, did not allege with sufficient particularity the existence of a "claim" as defined by the False Claims Act (FCA), is affirmed as, because no holding of Bledsoe II affected the circuit's law on the questions at issue before the district court, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that its original rationale for not permitting plaintiff to file its second amended complaint pursuant to Rule 59(e) still obtained and that permitting such a filing was not otherwise "required in order to prevent an injustice."

More...

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[08/30] Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Savings Bank
In plaintiff's suit for breach of contract against defendant-bank for nonpayment of fees under the parties' Technology Outsourcing Agreement, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) an expert's testimony was both relevant and reliable; 2) district court correctly determined that plaintiff did not breach the Agreement's performance warranty and its duty of good faith; 3) district court did not err in concluding that any reliance by defendant on the alleged misrepresentations of plaintiff was not reasonable; 3) district court committed no reversible error in determining that defendant's fraud claims were without merit; 4) district court determined correctly that defendant's success on the in-house issue does not render it a "prevailing party" within the meaning of the contract; and 5) the district court acted within the bounds of its discretion in determining that no additional guarantee of reasonableness was required.

[08/30] Flood v. ClearOne Communications, Inc.
In defendant's appeal from a preliminary injunction requiring defendant-corporation to advance attorney fees and costs to its former CEO, who was then facing a criminal trial, the order is vacated where the district court misread the parties' contract as a matter of law, disregarding express conditions to advancement specified in their agreement.

[08/30] HCM Healthcare, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n
In a residential nursing facility's suit against California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) for breach of contract and for violating the Insurance Code for refusing to provide plaintiffs with defense counsel and indemnification for underlying lawsuits for elder abuse, judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) as a creature of statute, and not of contract, in some instances CIGA may not be responsible for an insured loss to the same extent as the insolvent insurer might be under the terms of its insurance contract; and 2) Pennsylvania's liquidation order imposed a June 30, 2005 deadline for filing against an insurer and because plaintiff did not meet the deadline, CIGA may not honor their claims.

[08/27] Paloian v. Lasalle Bank, N.A.
In a debtor-hospital's trustee's action to recover, as fraudulent conveyances, some loan payments made during the last years before hospital entered bankruptcy, judgment of the district court is vacated and remanded where: 1) LaSalle Bank is an "initial transferee" as an entity that receives funds for use in paying down a loan, or passing money to investors in a pool, is an "initial transferee" even though the recipient is obliged by contract to apply the funds according to a formula; 2) because the hospital was solvent in August 1997, the ensuing months' debt service cannot be recaptured as a fraudulent conveyance; and 3) on remand, the bankruptcy court is instructed to determine whether the transfer of the accounts receivable to MMA Funding was a true sale, such that MMA Funding served as the bankruptcy-proofing intermediary that the lenders desired.

More...

Elections

[09/01] Warf v. Bd of Elections of Green County
In plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming unconstitutional disenfranchisement against a county elections board and individuals, alleging that their voting rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by a Kentucky state trial court judgment that declared void all 542 votes cast by absentee ballot in the 2006 General Election for the office of Green County Clerk, grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed as the Green Circuit Court's decision to void the absentee ballots does not rise to a level of fundamental unfairness in violation of Due Process as it is evident that the decision to void all absentee ballots cast in the election reasonably applied applicable Kentucky case law, and the court appropriately looked to analogous state cases and applied the careful scrutiny to incumbent clerks described therein.

[09/01] Nader v. Cronin
In an action by independent candidates for president, including Ralph Nader, who were denied access to Hawaii's ballot for the 2004 election, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the relevant provisions governing ballot access did not violate the Equal Protection Clause or the First and Fourteenth Amendments because plaintiffs failed to show that Hawaii's election scheme imposed a severe burden on independent candidates for president even in light of an examination of Hawaii's regulatory scheme as a whole.

[08/31] Florida Dep't of State v. Mangat
Judgment of the circuit court, finding that the ballot summary for Amendment 9, for creating a new section related to health care services in article I of the Florida Constitution, does not meet the requirements of section 101.161 and therefore may not be included on the November 2010 ballot is affirmed as, the ballot language put forth by the party proposing the constitutional amendment contains misleading and ambiguous language and the only recourse is to strike the proposed amendment from the ballot.

[08/31] Roberts v. Brown
Secretary of State's petition for extraordinary writ and a petition for a writ of prohibition on the basis that the Second Circuit Court is acting in excess of its jurisdiction by accepting jurisdiction to consider a pre-election action for declaratory and injunctive relief that seeks to remove two citizen-initiative proposed constitutional amendments from the November ballot, is granted and the circuit court is directed to dismiss the pre-election proceedings on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the circuit court's determination that it retains subject matter jurisdiction to consider a pre-election to consider the respondents' challenges to Amendments 5 and 6, the circuit court is encroaching on the Supreme Court of Florida's exclusive jurisdiction and is acting in excess of its jurisdiction.

More...

International Trade

[08/30] Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiff's patent infringement suit related to two types of digital storage devices, recordable discs (CD-Rs) and rewritable compact discs (CD-RWs), claiming that defendant was violating section 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing CD-Rs and CD-RWs that infringed its patents, the International Trade Commission's decision that the doctrine of patent misuse does not bar intervenor-U.S. Philips Corporation from enforcing its patent rights against defendant is affirmed as, even if Phillips and Sony engaged in an agreement not to license the patent at issue for non-Orange-Book purposes, that hypothesized agreement had no bearing on the physical or temporal scope of the patents in suit, nor did it have anti-competitive effects in the relevant market. Therefore, the asserted agreement between Phillips and Sony did not constitute misuse and cannot justify rendering all of Phillips' Orange Book patents unenforceable.

[08/27] Gen. Protecht Group, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
The International Trade Commission's determination that the importation into the United States of certain ground fault circuit interrupters (GFCI) violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, in issuing limited exclusion orders against the importation of GFCI products from the petitioners and judgment finding that these products infringe the '340 patent is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) GPG's 2003 and 2006 FCIs and ELE's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '340 patent, because they do not have a "detection circuit" as claimed in the patent; 2) Trimone's 2006 GFCIs and ELE's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '340 patent because the "load terminals" of the patent do not include receptacle outlets; 3) GPG's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '398 patent because GPG performs the function of the "latching means" in a substantially different way than the structure disclosed in the patent; and 4) the Commission's determination is affirmed in all other respects.

[08/27] Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n.
In plaintiff's suit against various defendants claiming infringement of its patents related to circuit interrupters for use with household electrical appliances, the International Trade Commission's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed as, because the accused products at issue here do not meet the "mounting means" limitation as properly construed, and thus do not meet every limitation of the asserted claims, there can be no infringement. Accordingly, Commission's finding of no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is affirmed.

[08/19] Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.
In plaintiff's suit against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and two of its employees in their official capacities, claiming that the agency failed to act on a timely basis on five permit applications for permission to export 4074.05 pounds of roe worth approximately $500,000, district court's denial of plaintiffs' Rule 59 motion to alter the order dismissing their suit is affirmed as a claimant who seeks to amend a complaint after losing the case must provide a compelling explanation to the district court for granting the motion, and here, the district court did not exceed its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs provided nothing of the sort.

More...

Oil & Gas

More...