Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[07/01] Arnold's Wines, Inc. v. Boyle
District court order granting defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment is affirmed where sections of the New York Alcoholic Beverage Control Laws banning direct sales to consumers by out-of-state liquor retailers and instituting a three-tier system for the regulation of alcoholic beverages evenhandedly regulate the importation and distribution of liquor within the state and do not discriminate against out-of-state producers in violation of the Commerce Clause, and thus are a valid exercise of the state's rights under the Twenty-first Amendment.

[06/26] TAG/ICIB Services, Inc. v. Sedeco Servicio de Descuento en Compras
District court judgment against defendant for overdue demurrage owed to plaintiff is reversed where: 1) Puerto Rico Commerce Code Article 947's 180-day limitations period applies to plaintiff's claim for overdue demurrage charges on international shipments to Puerto Rico; and 2) the court did not err in failing to apply the laches presumption, as the parties offered scant facts relevant to such an inquiry and the parties consented to judgment based on the stipulation.

[06/26] Keweenaw Bay Indian Comm. v. Rising
In an Indian tribe's action seeking injunctive relief from Michigan's policy of taxing transactions involving the tribe and from Michigan's reliance on an informal refund process to sort those immunities out on a case-by-case basis, judgment for Defendant is reversed, where the questions presented covered a myriad of hypothetical transactions and were too abstract and unsupported by specific facts.

[06/25] Taco John's of Huron, Inc. v. Bix Produce Co., LLC
In a negligence class action involving the provision of contaminated lettuce to restaurant franchises, appeal following district court's Rule 54(b) certification for immediate appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the case does not present sufficient exigency as there is no danger or hardship in allowing it to take its ordinary course.

More...

Elder Law

[06/23] Gdowski v. Gdowski
Trial court issuance of a protective order against defendant under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act is reversed where: 1) a protective order under the Elder Abuse Act may issue on the basis of evidence of past abuse, without any particularized showing that the wrongful acts will be continued or repeated; and 2) the trial court erred in basing its decision in issuing the protective order on counsel's conduct rather than on substantial evidence.

[05/20] Health Care Industry Liability Ins. Program v. Momence Meadows Nursing Center, Inc.
In a dispute involving insurance liability coverage, district court judgment finding that plaintiff had no duty to defend defendant is affirmed where the wrongdoings for which the parties in the underlying suit are attempting to hold defendant liable for are the filing of false claims and unlawful employment actions, not the injuries suffered by residents under defendant's care, and none of the policy provisions cover such claims.

[04/29] People v. Henning
Conviction for financial elder abuse is affirmed where: 1) the jury was given only the erroneous portion of CALCRIM No. 1804 regarding corroboration, and was thus not instructed correctly that the corroborating writing must be false and was not instructed as to the other possible methods of corroboration; but 2) the error was manifestly harmless under any standard of review.

[02/19] Golden Years Homestead, Inc. v. Buckland
In a suit by a nursing home operator against Indiana State Department of Health inspectors alleging violations of its Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, malicious prosecution and abuse of process, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) although defendants focused on certain affirmative defenses and the sufficiency of proof on the federal claims, the defendants sought summary judgment on all claims, thus the district court's order was not an improper sua sponte summary judgment on the state law claims; and 2) summary judgment was also appropriate on the merits since the state law claims required proof of malice or ulterior motive.

More...

Insurance Law

[07/02] Clarendon National Ins. Co. v. United Fire & Casualty Co.
In an action brought to determine the priority of coverage between certain insurance policies, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) defendant's demand for plaintiff to be involved in the defense of anticipated suits by injured parties is enough to create an actual controversy and give plaintiff the right to bring a declaratory judgment action to determine priority of coverage; and 2) the court did not err in determining that defendant's policy provided primary coverage for the accident and that its umbrella policy would also be triggered before the policy issued by plaintiff came into play.

[07/01] Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. v. DG&G Co., Inc.
In a dispute involving insurance liability coverage, district court's grant of summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the cotton was in defendant's custody, control and care at the time of the property-damaging occurrence and thus the control and care exclusion in the insurance policy issued by plaintiff applied; and 2) the damage to the cotton was not covered by defendant's agribusiness insurance policy as the defects, errors and omissions exclusion in the policy applies and precludes coverage of the loss.

[07/01] Bristol West Ins. Co. v. Wawanesa Mutual Ins. Co.
In a dispute involving the interpretation of an insurance contract, district court judgment is reversed where the plain language of the Out of State Coverage clause in the policy makes specific reference to any accident that occurs out of state, and does not focus on the limits of the out of the state financial responsibility law, and thus the insurance policy necessarily expands the amount of liability coverage in this case since the accident occurred in New Brunswick.

[06/30] People v. Coventry First LLC
In an enforcement action by the state claiming that Defendant life settlement providers concealed commissions to brokers, who persuaded their clients to accept Defendants' offers, the denial of Defendants' motion to dismiss or compel arbitration is affirmed where: 1) the state was not bound by arbitration agreements signed by Defendants' clients; and 2) the complaint stated a claim that Defendants knew that the life settlement brokers' conduct constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.

More...

Professional Malpractice

[07/01] Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman
Trial court judgment sustaining the demurrers of Class Counsel is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff is collaterally estopped from pursuing a malpractice claim against Class Counsel based on the theory that counsel breached their duty of care to the class by failing to negotiate a different settlement notice procedure than that approved by the trial court in the prior action; and 2) plaintiff's argument that Class Counsel breached their duty of care by failing to contact him specifically once they knew or should have known that he had not submitted a timely claim form fails, as there is no authority imposing such an obligation on counsel in a class action suit. The court's award of sanctions to plaintiff's former employer Allstate under Code of Civil Procedure sec. 128.7 is reversed where Allstate did not satisfy the safe harbor requirements of the statute in seeking monetary sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel.

[06/29] Bakery Machinery & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc.
District court order denying plaintiff's motion to vacate the default judgment against it is affirmed where plaintiff's claim for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) based on the misconduct of its counsel fails as the counsel's actions, even with plaintiff's purported diligence, do not fall within the exceptions to the rule and do not rise to the level of exceptional to warrant such extraordinary relief.

[06/26] Capitol Hill Grp. v. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLC
In a legal malpractice action, summary judgment for Defendant law firm is affirmed where previous litigation involving Defendant's fee applications and the malpractice claim arose out of the same nucleus of facts and the identity element of res judicata was satisfied.

[06/10] Huss v. Gayden
In a personal injury action by a mother claiming that Defendant doctor negligently administered a drug during her pregnancy that injured her, judgment for Plaintiff is reversed where the District Court abused its discretion by excluding expert testimony by a physician whose education and knowledge allowed him to form a reliable opinion as to whether the drug at issue caused cardiomyopathy.

More...

Workers' Comp

[06/11] Simpson v. Empire Truck Lines, Inc.
In an action arising out of a truck accident under the Texas Workers Compensation Act (TWCA), judgment for Defendant is affirmed where the driver of the truck was not Defendant's statutory employee under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, and thus Defendant was not vicariously liable under the TWCA.

[06/08] Zaragoza v. Ibarra
In an civil action brought by a worker against a homeowner, trial court's grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's injury does not fall within the exclusive purview of the workers' compensation laws despite his employer's status as an unlicensed contractor as defendant had not worked 52 hours in the 90 days prior to the date of the injury specified in Labor Code sec. 3352(h); and 2) defendant was not negligent, as plaintiff's injury was entirely his own fault and there was no want of ordinary care taken by the plaintiff-homeowner.

[05/11] Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board
In a dispute involving attorney's fees, Court of Appeals judgment is reversed where Labor Code sec. 4607 authorizes an award of attorney fees to employees who successfully resist efforts to terminate their award of continuing medical treatment, but does not permit an award of fees to employees who successfully challenge the denial of specific treatment requests.

[05/04] California Self-Insurer's Sec. Fund v. Lorber Indus. of Cal.
Bankruptcy Court's denial of Plaintiff's request to give its workers' compensation reimbursement claim priority is affirmed where Plaintiff's reimbursement claim did not qualify as an excise tax under 11 U.S.C. section 507(a)(8)(E)(ii).

More...