Case Summaries
Civil Procedure
[09/08]
Adrian v. Yorktown
In an action alleging that defendant-town, through its town supervisor and other policy-making officials, maintained an official policy under which the plaintiffs were denied the right to develop their property, and subsequently retaliated against for their exercise of their First Amendment rights, a district court's order denying post-verdict interest is vacated where, if a mandate reinstating a jury verdict does not order entry of a judgment in a specific dollar amount, and also makes no mention of interest, the district court retains the power to award post-verdict interest on remand.
[09/08]
Rhodes v. Robinson
In an action alleging that prison guards violated plaintiff's civil rights by retaliating against him for exercising his First Amendment right to pursue the prison grievance process against them, a dismissal of the complaint is reversed in part where the new claims in plaintiff's second amended complaint (SAC) should not have been dismissed, because they were properly exhausted before he tendered his SAC to the district court for filing.
[09/08]
Wilcox v. Homestake Mining Co.
In an action brought under the Price-Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. section 2210, claiming that plaintiffs suffered cancer due to exposure to radiation from defendants' uranium mill, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) there was no basis in New Mexico law for extending the exception to the but-for causation requirement beyond the limited bounds the court described in interpreting the Restatement view under Colorado law in June; and 2) to the extent Tafoya altered the but-for test in situations where a defendant's actions aggravated but did not cause an injury, it was not applicable in this case.
[09/08]
Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Grp. Ins. Plan
In an action concerning defendant's denial of disability benefits under an ERISA plan, summary judgment for defendant is vacated where: 1) the court's case law
prohibited courts from considering materials outside the administrative record where the extra-record materials sought to be introduced related to a claimant's eligibility for benefits; and 2) neither a claimant nor an administrator should be allowed to use discovery to engage in unnecessarily broad discovery that slows the efficient resolution of an ERISA claim.
[09/08]
In re: Paolo
A debtor's appeal of a district court's decision to abstain from deciding a tax dispute with the government as an adjunct to the debtor's personal bankruptcy proceeding is dismissed as the appeal is barred by section 1334(d) .
[09/08]
Rafael Rodriguez Barril, Inc. v. Conbraco Indus., Inc.
In a contract dispute, district court's finding that a forum selection clause in the contract was not displaced by Puerto Rico's Sales Representatives Act of 1990, in dismissing the suit is affirmed as, the substantive issues as to choice of law, as well as the merits of the contract termination controversy, are to be resolved in the forum chosen by the parties. Here, the forum selection clause in the agreement fixes North Carolina, and the forum selection clause is not forbidden by Law 21.
[09/08]
In re Specht
[09/07]
Hamdi v. Napolitano
In a severely disabled minor child's action under the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from removing his mother on the ground that the mother's removal violated his own constitutional rights as an American citizen, dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. section 1252(g) does not apply to independent actions brought by a citizen child raising distinct constitutional rights; 2) the APA does not provide subject matter jurisdiction in this case; 3) a citizen child raising distinct constitutional rights may assert federal question subject matter jurisdiction; and 4) dismissal was proper because petitioner failed to state a constitutional claim upon which relief may be granted.
[09/07]
Wilson v. Rees
District court's dismissal, as untimely, of an inmate's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit challenging Kentucky's lethal injection protocol under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments is affirmed as Bowling v. Ky. Dept. of Corrections, 301 S.W.3d 478, (Ky. 2009), and its aftermath do not disrupt the district court's holding that defendant's complaint is barred by the statute of limitations.
[09/07]
Mozden v. Holder
A Polish family's petition for review of the BIA's affirmance of an IJ's finding the petitioners removable is denied where: 1) petitioners failed to establish lawful presence; 2) BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance; and 3) the BIA properly affirmed the IJ's finding that the mother did not qualify for consideration of cancellation of removal.
[09/03]
Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Anderson Senior Living Prop., LLC.
In an appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) grant of debtors' motion to dismiss as moot pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 363(m), plaintiffs' appeal of the bankruptcy court's authorization of the sale of debtors' interests in seven co-owned properties as well as the undivided interests of the tenants in common (TIC), is affirmed as the BAP properly determined that section 363(m) moots the appeal because, even though the bankruptcy court approved the sale of the TIC property interests pursuant to section 363(h), the debtors ultimately sold the properties pursuant to section 363(b) and that sale was never stayed.
[09/03]
Wilson v. O'Brien
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against the City of Chicago and persons associated with his prosecution for attempted murder, brought after a state court set aside the conviction, plaintiff's and a witness's interlocutory appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the collateral-order doctrine does not support an interlocutory appeal by a party to the litigation who contends that the district judge erred in resolving a dispute about an evidentiary privilege. Here, the privilege belonged to the plaintiff, not the witness, who was a law student at the time he interviewed plaintiff for the acts of which he had been convicted, and Mohawk Industries holds that the district court's resolution of the question of whether defendants may use the witness's deposition that they now possess is to be reviewed on appeal from the final decision.
[09/03]
Superior Seafoods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
District court's denial of plaintiff's Rule 60(d)(3) motion to vacate an underlying consent judgment involving a series of trademark-related actions stemming from plaintiff's sale of a seafood-products business to defendant is affirmed as, given the facts, and given the equitable requirement that the party seeking relief be free from negligence and fault, the district court clearly did not abuse its discretion in finding equitable relief inappropriate in this case.
[09/03]
Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has offered insufficient evidence to establish the key elements of her retaliation and discrimination claims; and 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.
[09/03]
U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Hyatt
District court's order of contempt and award of attorney's fees against nonparties for their failure to adequately respond to two subpoenas duces tecum served on them by the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with litigation between the SEC and another party is vacated where: 1) Rule 45(e) does not require the court to first order compliance before imposing the sanction of contempt, although Rule 45(c) requires an intervening court order if the recipient of the subpoena objects in writing to the production of documents or things, and here, the nonparties did not serve a written objection; and 2) SEC's notice and motion for a rule to show cause did not provide sufficient notice that the district court would decide the contempt issue at the initial hearing as the notice sought only the issuance of a show-cause order and asked the court to set a hearing at which the merits of the contempt issue would later be adjudicated.
