Case Summaries

Administrative Law

[11/20] Khan v. US
In a civil tax case in which the IRS sought to compel the testimony of petitioners' accountant in relation to an audit of their tax returns, an order quashing the summons is reversed where, under a Chevron analysis: 1) a statute barring the IRS from issuing a summons to any person under a Justice Department referral was ambiguous as to whether it applied only to taxpayers or to third party witnesses as well; and 2) the Treasury Department's interpretation that it could summon a third party was reasonable.

[11/19] Mission Hosp. Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Shewry
In an action brought by over 100 state hospitals alleging section 32 of Senate Bill No. 1103, which froze reimbursement rates paid to noncontract hospitals for inpatient services during the state's 2004-2005 fiscal year, violated the Medicaid Act and that the Department of Health Care Services violated federal Medicaid regulation and state and federal protections, judgment rejecting most of plaintiffs' claims is reversed and remanded where: 1) the federal statute requiring notice and comment procedures applied to the state's action; 2) the state's process did not satisfy the federal statute; and 3) the trial court erred in its ruling under section (13)(A).

[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.

More...

Aerospace & Defense

[11/10] Menard v. Fed. Avation Admin.
Petition for review of FAA orders setting out requirements for the operation of two neighboring airports is denied where the FAA's determination that the airports could safely coexist was not arbitrary or capricious.

[11/04] Rothe Dev. Corp. v. Dep't of Defense
In an equal-protection challenge to the requirements of 10 U.S.C. section 2323 setting a "goal" that a certain percentage of defense contracting dollars be award to entities owned and controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals," summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) while considering the legislation at issue, Congress did not have a "strong basis in evidence" before it, upon which to conclude that defendant was a passive participant in racial discrimination in relevant markets across the country and that therefore race-conscious remedial measures were necessary; and 2) without such evidence there was no compelling government interest sufficient to withstand strict scrutiny of the statute, and the statute was therefore unconstitutional on its face.

[10/30] Auerbach v. Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 for the County of Los Angeles
In a claim arising from property tax assessment on a business jet aircraft, denial of petition to overturn defendant-Board's decision excluding aircraft from sales tax calculation based on its use by a common carrier is affirmed where: 1) the use of the aircraft as an unscheduled air taxi qualified it under the definition of a common carrier, even though the aircraft was not a commercial aircraft used for scheduled airline operations; 2) based on its use by a common carrier, the aircraft was exempt from sales tax; 3) plaintiff-assessor did not carry his burden of proof to show that the aircraft was not operated by a common carrier as of the January 2004 valuation date; and 4) an amount attributed to sales tax should not have been included in the plaintiff-assessor's valuation of the aircraft.

More...

Banking Law

[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.

[11/10] Sherer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC
In a suit involving Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reversed where the arbitration clause in question bound plaintiff to arbitrate his dispute with defendant, even though defendant was not a signatory to the original agreement.

[11/06] In the Matter Of: Entringer Bakeries Inc.
In a bankruptcy trustee's action to avoid two pre-petition transfers made by debtor to creditor-bank, judgment for trustee is affirmed and award vacated where: 1) the "earmarking" doctrine did not apply and the payments were therefore impermissible preferential transfers; and 2) the entire transfer, not just a part of it, could be avoided under section 547(c)(2) of the bankruptcy code.

More...

Commercial Law

[11/18] Surrey v. TrueBeginnings
In a case of first impression in California involving an online matchmaking service, someone who presents him or herself to a business with the intent of purchasing its services or products, but becomes aware of that business's practice of charging different amounts for such services or products based on gender and thereafter does not purchase those services or products, is not aggrieved by that practice so as to have standing to sue for violations of the Unruh Act and the Gender Tax Repeal Act. The court adopts a bright-line rule that a person must tender the purchase price for a business's services or products in order to have standing to sue it for alleged discriminatory practices relating thereto.

[11/14] Cadles of Grassy Meadows II, LLC v. Goldner
Petition for panel rehearing granted, prior opinion withdrawn, and matter remanded for further proceedings in light of Kerlin v. Sauceda, 05-0653 (Tex. October 10, 2008).

[11/12] Hoopes v. Dolan
In a suit by plaintiff-commercial tenant against his landlord for exclusive parking rights under his lease, a judgment for defendants despite a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the trial court erred in disregarding the jury's verdict when fashioning equitable relief founded on the same evidence and the same operative facts as the verdict; 2) however, the defense of equitable estoppel was a matter within the exclusive province of the trial judge and it raised legal and factual issues undecided by the jury; and 3) while the trial court should have considered the equitable defense first, the order of trial was within the court's discretion and did not divest the judge of his duty to determine applicability of equitable estoppel.

More...

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.

More...

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[11/20] Vasquez v. State of California
In a taxpayer cause of action brought against the state for violating Proposition 139, known as the Prison Inmate Labor Initiative of 1990, by failing to collect and disburse payments due from joint venture programs with private employers within state prisons, award of attorneys' fees to plaintiff-company representive under the "private attorney general statute", Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, is affirmed where: 1) no rule applicable to this case required plaintiff first to attempt to settle the matter short of litigation; 2) the present case is not a catalyst case because plaintiff successfully obtained a stipulated injunction that was entered as a judgment and thus brought about a judicially recognized change in the parties' legal relationship; and 3) the "limitations on the catalyst theory" adopted in Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. did not properly apply here.

[11/20] US v. Ellis
Convictions and sentence for failure to account for and pay federal taxes owed by defendant's business are affirmed over objections regarding: 1) the admission of evidence of defendant's personal expenditures; 2) the admission of evidence regarding other, uncharged tax violations; 3) the imposition of a sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice on the basis of defendant's perjury; and 4) the imposition of a fine in an amount above the sentencing guidelines recommendation.

[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.

More...

Elections

[11/17] Am. Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico v. Santillanes
Grant of declaratory and injunctive relief from a city amendment requiring voters in municipal elections to present photo identification at polling locations is reversed where a photo identification law is a valid method of preventing voter fraud.

[10/30] US Student Ass'n Found. v. Land
Defendants-Michigan officals' emergency motion to stay a preliminary injunction ordering them to refrain from rejecting a voter's registration when that voter's identification card is returned to election officials as undeliverable, and to reinstate registrations that have been rejected pursuant to such practice since January 1, 2006, is denied where: 1) Michigan's undeliverable-voter-ID-card practice likely violates the clear language of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and thus defendants did not show they were likely to succeed on the merits; 2) the only harm to defendants that they asserted was an administrative burden that they admitted was manageable; and 3) the factors of substantial harm to others and the public interest also weighed against granting a stay.

[09/30] Peninsula Guardians, Inc. v. Peninsula Health Care Dist.
In a suit by a public-interest group alleging that defendants entered into a lease agreement in violation of a statute, and made illegal campaign expenditures in connection with a special election to approve the building of a new hospital, dismissal of some claims and summary judgment for defendant on the remainder are affirmed, but denial of post-judgment motion is reversed and cause remanded where: 1) the lease in question was not subject to a statutory 30-year maximum term; 2) election materials prepared by defendant did not expressly advocate the approval of the ballot measure, and therefore were not in violation of election law; and 3) remand was warranted to allow plaintiff to amend its complaint.

More...

International Trade

[11/13] US v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp.
In a suit over alleged underpayment of merchandise processing fees on customs entries, award of penalties and prejudgment interest are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the court could award the maximum statutory penalty for violations involving ordinary negligence, not merely for gross negligence; but 2) prejudgment interest could not be awarded for damages that were primarily punitive in nature.

[11/06] Rexroth Hydraudyne B.V. v. Ocean World Lines, Inc.
Order awarding defendants partial summary judgment and limiting their liability to $13,500 pursuant to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act is affirmed where: 1) defendants did not fall within the statutory grasp of the Carmack Amendment; and 2) defendants were therefore entitled to employ the contractual limitations of liability set out in the through bills of lading.

[10/14] Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
An ITC ruling that appellant's chips and chipsets infringed certain patents and were therefore subject to a limited exclusion order (LEO) restricting their import is affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part where: 1) a disputed claim was properly construed by the agency; 2) the patent claims at issue were not invalid for anticipation or obviousness; 3) remand was necessary for consideration of whether appellant had the specific intent to induce infringement; and 4) the LEO issued by the ITC was limited to excluding persons named by the complainant.

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.

More...