News

Case Summaries

Civil Procedure

[05/21] Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd.
In a case in which the respondent was the prevailing party in a civil action instituted by the petitioner, an award of the cost of translating documents is vacated, as the Court Interpreters Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1920, which includes "compensation of interpreters" among the costs that may be awarded to prevailing parties in federal-court lawsuits, does not include the cost of document translation.

[05/18] Crowther v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
In consolidated negligence actions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) against two railroad defendants brought by a former employee, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed, where: 1) no fact-finder could reasonably have inferred that the plaintiff first became aware of a work connection with his knee pain and neck injury within the period of limitation; 2) there was no error in entering judgment as a matter of law on negligence claims based on inadequate tools and failure to obtain ergonomic studies of the activities required to perform the plaintiff's various jobs; and 3) it was not reversible error to admit collateral source evidence that the plaintiff was receiving disability benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act.

[05/17] Duchesneau v. Shinseki
In a case in which a veteran sought an increased disability rating for a service-connected shoulder disability, and challenged a holding of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that 38 CFR section 4.71a, DC 5201 provides only a single disability rating for a single disability, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, where the decision of the Veterans Court remanding to the Board of Veterans' Appeals was not a final judgment, since the fact that the plaintiff could lose before the Board without regard to the Veterans Court's interpretation of section 4.71a did not create a substantial risk that the Veterans Court’s interpretation of section 4.71a would evade review.

[05/17] JSJ Limited Partnership v. Mehrban
In a suit by a restaurant for abuse of process and malicious prosecution against a patron who had sued it for ADA violations, the trial court's denial of an anti-SLAPP motion to strike is reversed, where: 1) the ADA complaint arose from protected activity and was a proper subject of a motion made pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute; and 2) the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of demonstrating a likelihood it would prevail on the merits of its claims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution, since a) the litigation privilege foreclosed the pursuit of the abuse of process cause of action, and b) the restaurant's successful invocation of the defense of res judicata in the underlying ADA claim, which resulted in a voluntary dismissal, was not a favorable determination on the merits necessary for a malicious prosecution action.

Read More

Commercial Law

[05/16] Alphas Co., Inc. v. Dan Tudor & Sons Sales, Inc.
In a case in which a grower of grapes filed a successful reparation complaint against a supplier under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (PACA) for recovery of payment due on 17 shipments of table grapes, the district court's dismissal of the supplier's appeal is affirmed, where the supplier failed to file the required appeal bond.

[05/08] Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., U.S.
In litigation over competing lines of high-end cookware in which the appellees claimed trade dress infringement and unfair and deceptive trade practices, the district court's judgment in favor of the appellees is affirmed, where: 1) the appellant's failure to move pursuant to Rule 50(b) forfeited its challenge on appeal to the sufficiency of the evidence; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying an expert or in admitting his testimony and survey; 3) the appellant engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices as a matter of law; 4) the infringement was not innocent or unintentional, and the unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes covered it; and 5) the trial judge properly treated the award of profits as damages subject to trebling under state statute.

[04/27] Coors Brewing Co. v. Mendez-Torres
In a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to Puerto Rico's differential tax treatment of large and small brewers, the district court's dismissal on comity grounds is affirmed, where: 1) the plaintiff sought review of regulatory matters over which Puerto Rico enjoys wide regulatory latitude under the Butler Act, 48 USC section 872; 2) the plaintiff was explicitly seeking to improve its competitive position with respect to Puerto Rico's local brewer; 3) Puerto Rico's courts were better positioned than were the federal courts to address and remedy any potential constitutional violations; 4) none of the defendant's actions amounted to voluntary consent to suit in federal court; 5) the equities favored dismissal; and 6) Puerto Rico courts met the adequate state-court forum test.

[04/27] Aresty International Law Firm P.C. v. Citibank, N.A.
In a suit by a law firm claiming that a bank on which a check was drawn violated Regulation CC by failing to notify the law firm's bank in a timely manner that it would not honor the check, and that it had negligently breached a duty it owed the law firm under Regulation CC, the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss is affirmed, where: 1) the claim of violation of Regulation CC was time-barred, and equitable tolling did not apply; and 2) the state claim was preempted by federal law.

Read More

Contracts

[05/21] Alday v. Raytheon Co.
In a class action by retired employees under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and section 502 of ERISA: 1) summary judgment to the plaintiffs is affirmed, where a) the employer expressly agreed to provide 100% company-paid healthcare coverage for eligible retirees in collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), b) the employer's obligation survived the expiration of the CBAs, and c) the employer's agreed-upon obligation could not be unilaterally abrogated by the employer, regardless of the rights it reserved for itself in plan documents; and 2) the district court's rejection of the retirees' claim for punitive and extra-contractual damages is affirmed.

[05/18] Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. US
In an action seeking damages to compensate for the cost of storing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste beyond the time that the government promised by contract to begin storing that waste in a permanent and secure repository, the Federal Circuit: 1) affirms a) the trial court's factual determination and award of damages based on an exchanges model, b) the trial court's determination regarding the deferred costs for loading waste to DOE, and c) the trial court's finding that the government could not assert that Greater Than Class C radioactive waste must be included in the SNF acceptance queue calculations; and 2) reverses the trial court's denial of wet storage pool costs and NRC fees.

[05/18] Oxford Aviation, Inc. v. Global Aerospace, Inc.
In an action brought by an insured seeking a declaratory judgment that its insurer was required to defend it in a suit for alleged faulty repair work performed for a client, the decision of the district court is vacated so far as it rejected a duty to defend, where: 1) some damage allegedly caused by the insured was within the coverage provision of the policy; and 2) none of the five exclusions in the policy negated the duty to defend.

[05/17] Fleisher v. Standard Insurance Co.
In a case in which a long-term disability (LTD) insurance provider reduced a dentist's monthly benefits by the amount of the monthly benefits he received under a separate LTD insurance policy, the district court's dismissal of the dentist's ERISA claim is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not err in determining that the arbitrary and capricious standard of review of the plan administrator's decision applied; 2) the plan administrator reasonably determined that the other policy fell within the meaning of "another group insurance coverage" and so amounts paid under it could reduce the amount the defendant insurer owed.

Read More