Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[08/27] Gander Mountain Co. v. Cabela's, Inc.
In a case arising from a contract dispute involving a 1996 transaction between the parties, summary judgment for plaintiff on a counterclaim, finding that a provision at issue was unenforceable because it was merely an agreement to agree, is affirmed over claims that the district court violated the law-of-the-case doctrine and erred in granting summary judgment.

[08/27] 216 Jamaica Ave., LLC v. S & R Playhouse Realty Co.
In a case involving the enforceability of a "gold clause" contained in a 1912 lease agreement, which required payment of rents to be in gold coins, a judgment against plaintiff-owner who tried to enforce the clause is reversed and remanded where: 1) contrary to the ruling below, the clause is enforceable; and 2) a remand was necessary for the district court to interpret the clause, to determine the obligation it imposes on the lessee, and to address any other defenses in the first instance, including lessee's estoppel-by-deed and waiver defenses.

[08/27] 216 Jamaica Ave., LLC v. S & R Playhouse Realty Co.
In a case involving the enforceability of a "gold clause" contained in a 1912 lease agreement, which required payment of rents to be in gold coins, a judgment against plaintiff-owner who tried to enforce the clause is reversed and remanded where: 1) contrary to the ruling below, the clause is enforceable; and 2) a remand was necessary for the district court to interpret the clause, to determine the obligation it imposes on the lessee, and to address any other defenses in the first instance, including lessee's estoppel-by-deed and waiver defenses.

[08/26] Grynberg v. Total S.A.
In two suits against oil companies raising tort claims for breach of fiduciary duty and equitable claims for unjust enrichment involving potential oil and gas reserves in Kazakhstan, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and laches.

More...

Elder Law

[05/13] Cao v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
In an action wherein plaintiff sought recovery under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for alleged constitutional violations along with several state law causes of action after she was removed from her home, made to undergo a psychological evaluation, and placed in a state institution for the elderly, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's section 1983 claim as untimely; and 2) with no federal cause of action remaining, the district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

[05/05] Miller v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
In a suit against American Airlines under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) a collective bargaining agreement did not require that plaintiffs be offered positions of comparable pay past the retirement age; 2) a claim, that a supplement to the collective bargaining agreement governing the retirement of flight engineers was facially discriminatory, was not properly raised before the EEOC.

[03/11] Budnick v. Town of Carefree
In an action raising, inter alia, a claim that defendant-town violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) by denying plaintiffs a Special Use Permit (SUP) to build a multi-level continuing-care retirement community in the town, summary judgment against plaintiffs on the FHAA claim is affirmed where plaintiff failed to establish a discrimination claim under any of the theories of disparate treatment, disparate impact, or a failure to make reasonable accommodations. Potential residents of a retirement community do not presently qualify as disabled under the FHAA simply because some of them will become disabled as they age.

[03/10] Med. Liab. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alan Curtis LLC
In an action brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment regarding its duties to defend and indemnify defendants against claims in an Arkansas state court action, summary judgment determining such duties is affirmed where the district court did not err by deciding that: 1) the only claim in the underlying lawsuit covered under insurer's policy was an estate's breach of contract claim against nursing home facility owner; 2) insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify owner on that claim and therefore also a duty to defend it on all of the estate's claims against it; and 3) insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify appellant-employee of the nursing home's management company.

More...

Insurance Law

[08/28] Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Richards
In an suit to resolve conflicting claims to the proceeds of a life-insurance policy, judgment that defendant, the wife of decedent, conspired in, aided and abetted the murder of decedent and was thus disqualified under state law from receiving life insurance proceeds is affirmed where: 1) defendant, having asserted the privilege against self-incrimination at her deposition, was properly precluded from testifying at trial that she was not involved in the murder; 2) an adverse inference could properly be drawn from defendant's exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination; 3) a witness was properly characterized as an out-of-state resident and thus unavailable for trial; and 4) alleged hearsay in the witness's deposition testimony in fact consisted of admissible co-conspirator statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy to murder decedent.

[08/28] Northland Casualty Co. v. Meeks
In an insurance claim by estate of plaintiffs in which defendant-insurer's coverage excluded claims by employees, grant of summary judgment to defendant insurance company is affirmed where: 1) there were no genuine issues of material fact; and 2) the district court correctly determined that the deceased was an employee and not a temporary worker as defined by the insurance policy.

[08/27] Fidelity and Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Star Equip. Corp.
In a dispute arising over a construction contract, enforcement of a settlement agreement and grant of summary judgment are affirmed where: 1) a hand-written agreement contemplated execution of a more formal agreement does not preclude enforcement of the hand-written agreement; 2) the terms of this settlement were clear and unambiguous; 3) there was no error in the district court's order enforcing the Settlement Memorandum of Agreement as a settlement agreement that disposed of all the claims in the case except the indemnification dispute; and 4) Fidelity is entitled to indemnification because defendants failed to present any material facts which would give rise to a factual dispute as to a 'want of good faith' on the part of Fidelity.

[08/26] Della Dial v. Healthspring of Alabama, Inc.
In an appeal presenting the question of whether a complaint about conduct regulated by the Medicare Act filed in a state court may be removed to a federal court, denial of plaintiffs' motion to remand is reversed and remanded where: 1) because the plaintiffs' action is not a "civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction," the action is not removable; and 2) the district court would lack subject-matter jurisdiction over their complaint because it is not against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services for review of an administrative decision.

More...

Professional Malpractice

[08/22] Freedman v. Superior Ct. of Orange County
In an action to add a punitive damages claim to plaintiff's medical malpractice complaint, writ of mandate to vacate court's motion to amend is granted where: 1) plaintiff knew sufficient facts to file the motion before the statutory deadline; and 2) to the extent plaintiff desired additional evidence, he did not conduct reasonably diligent discovery before the deadline.

[08/15] US v. Chube
In the prosecution of two doctors for illegitimately prescribing the painkiller OxyContin, convictions for unlawful distribution of controlled substances and defrauding a health benefit program are affirmed, and sentences vacated and remanded, where: 1) the testimony of two physician expert witnesses as to violations of the standards of medical care was properly allowed, and did not go so far as to offer an impermissible opinion on defendants' subjective intent; and 2) under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applicable to judicial findings of relevant conduct during sentencing, the government's evidence did not show that all of defendants' prescribing activities should be included in relevant conduct calculations.

[08/15] CenTra, Inc. v. Estrin
In a suit against a law firm for damages, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and legal malpractice, summary judgment for the law firm is reversed where: 1) plaintiff established genuine issues of material fact regarding not only whether it impliedly consented to a conflict of interest, but also whether it could even consent to the conflict in the first instance; and 2) the district court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment prior to discovery.

[08/11] McIntosh v. Partridge
In a suit by a dentist dismissed from his position at a state-run home after his return from active military duty, summary judgment for defendant-employer is affirmed in part, and vacated with claims dismissed in part, where: 1) no federal jurisdiction existed to hear plaintiff's Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) claim, as a USERRA claim against the state as an employer was required to be brought in state court; 2) evidence considered at the summary judgment phase was admissible; 3) due process claims against defendant-supervisor in his individual capacity failed because plaintiff did not allege a constitutional due-process violation and because supervisor was entitled to a defense of qualified immunity; 4) due process claims against supervisor in his official capacity were barred by sovereign immunity; and 5) a state-law defamation claim was properly dismissed based on defendant-supervisor's official immunity.

More...

Workers' Comp

[08/22] Craft v. Astrue
Denial of a motion to alter or amend a judgment that plaintiff did not qualify for Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income benefits is reversed and remanded where: 1) there was not an "accurate and logical bridge" between the ALJ's recitation of the mental medical evidence and a decision to account for plaintiff's mental impairments by limiting him to unskilled work; and 2) the stated reasons of the ALJ for finding that plaintiff lacked credibility were contradicted by the objective evidence.

[08/18] US v. Simpson
A sentence and order of restitution imposed for defendant's crime of mail fraud, involving his underreporting of payroll information for his businesses to his workers' compensation insurance carriers, is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that the "loss" caused by this conduct was the amount of additional premiums that the insurance carriers would have charged had they been given accurate information.

[08/11] Ridings v. Riverside Med. Ctr.
In an employee's suit alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and state worker's compensation law, summary judgment for defendant-employer is affirmed where: 1) an interference claim failed because evidence regarding plaintiff's invocation of FMLA, and defendant's requests that she provide adequate medical certification, did not demonstrate that plaintiff was entitled to leave under the FMLA and that defendant denied her FMLA benefits to which she was entitled; 2) defendant could not be deemed to have retaliated against plaintiff by asking her to fulfill her obligations under the FMLA; and 3) a state-law retaliation claim failed as defendant articulated a valid basis for terminating plaintiff, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence to show that such basis was pretext.

[08/08] Mt. Diablo Unified Sch. Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Temporary disability payments commence when a school district pays an injured employee his or her normal wages under Education Code section 44043.

More...