Legal News

Case Summaries

Civil Procedure

[11/21] Martin v. Toledo Cardiology Consultants, Inc.
In a case brought by plaintiff-employee lab technician under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-employer cardiology office and dismissal of case is reversed and remanded where: 1) in addressing the plaintiff-employee's prima facie age discrimination case, the district court impermissibly made factual determinations and improperly drew inferences in favor solely of the defendant; and similarly 2) with the retaliation claim, the district court impermissibly made factual findings and did not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the non-moving party.

[11/19] Poche v. Texas Air Corps, Inc.
In a Fair Labor Standards Act claim alleging that plaintiff was entitled to overtime wages, and also alleging numerous state-law claims, remand of case to state court is reversed where 28 U.S.C. section 1441(c) does not permit a district court to remand federal claims conferring removal jurisdiction, even where those claims are part of a case predominated by state law.

[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).

Read 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.

[07/29] Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.
Denial of the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction against the merger of the Whole Foods and Wild Oats supermarket chains is reversed and remanded where: 1) the case was not moot despite the merger's having already occurred; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the market definition proposed by the FTC, in which Whole Foods and Wild Oats compete in the "premium, natural, and organic supermarkets" (PNOS) market, not against all supermarkets; 3) the FTC met the threshold requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction by demonstrating a likelihood of success on its claim that the two supermarkets did compete in the PNOS market; and 4) the district court was best positioned to balance the FTC's showing against the equities weighing against an injunction. (Amended and reissued opinion)

Read More

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[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.

[11/14] In Re NEXT Fin. Group, Inc.
In a suit claiming that plaintiff was wrongfully discharged for refusing to conceal allegedly fraudulent securities transactions, petition for mandamus relief is granted where plaintiff was required to arbitrate a claim that his employer wrongfully discharged him for refusing to commit an illegal act.

[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.

Read More

Ethics & Professional Responsibility

[11/20] State Bar of California v. Statile
Following settlement of lawsuits against defendant-attorney for misappropriation of trust funds, judgment limiting plaintiff-state bar's recovery to money due under the agreement settling lawsuits against defendant is reversed where: 1) neither the statutory scheme nor the settlement agreement in the present case limited plaintiff-bar's subrogation rights against defendant-attorney; 2) defendant was collaterally estopped from arguing that plaintiff was not entitled to full reimbursement for the amount the Client Security Fund paid clients of one of the trusts defendant represented; and 3) there was no substantial evidence to support the trial court's implied finding that plaintiff was not entitled to reimbursement for the money it paid on another client's trust claim.

[11/19] Johnson v. Tennis
In a case involving the joint bench trial of two alleged conspirators in a murder, in which the judge considered a confession by one defendant implicating the other, denial of petition for habeas relief is affirmed where: 1) the Bruton rule is inapplicable to the incriminating confession of a non-testifying codefendant in a joint bench trial; 2) defendant's constitutional rights were therefore not violated; and 3) defendant's counsel was not ineffective.

[11/19] US v. Morena
Conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possessing an unregistered firearm are reversed, and a new trial ordered, where the prosecutor's repeated introduction of testimony concerning defendant's involvement in the sale of illegal drugs was prejudicial to defendant and constituted prosecutorial misconduct, and the limiting instructions issued by the trial court were insufficient to cure the prejudice.

Read More

Evidence

[11/20] US v. Webb
Conviction for possession of drugs with intent to distribute is affirmed where the admission of evidence of defendant's prior drug crimes was error under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), but the error was harmless in light of the rest of the evidence.

[11/20] Saxton v. Sheets
In a conviction for aggravated murder, aggravated arson, and aggravated burglary, denial of writ of habeas corpus is affirmed where: 1) a conviction may be sustained based upon nothing more than circumstantial evidence; 2) the jury had a rational basis to find defendant guilty of aggravated arson and aggravated murder; and 3) the charge of aggravated burglary was proven by sufficient evidence.

[11/19] People v. Mosley
Conviction for misdemeanor assault is affirmed and court order requiring defendant to register as a sex offender is stricken where: 1) because the residency restriction was punitive, its imposition by the court increased the penalty for a nonsexual offense beyond the prescribed statutory maximum based upon the jury verdict alone; and 2) the facts required to impose the residency restriction were not found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury.

Read More