Case Summaries
[11/20]
Newark Parents Ass'n v. Newark Pub. Sch.
In a putative class action by parents of students alleging that defendant-school district was failing to live up to its obligations under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), dismissal of claims is affirmed where the notice and supplemental-education-services provisions of NCLBA did not confer a private right of action upon aggrieved individuals.
[11/18]
Stover v. Hattiesburg Pub. Sch. Dist.
In an employee's suit alleging race and sex discrimination, retaliation, and violation of the Equal Pay Act, judgment for defendant and denial of a new trial motion are affirmed where: 1) defendant was entitled to summary judgment on a constructive-discharge claim; 2) there was no reversible error in several challenged evidentiary rulings; 3) a "same actor" jury instruction was a correct statement of the law; and 4) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Award of attorney's fees is reversed as the award was improperly calculated and defendant was not entitled to attorney's fees.
[11/18]
Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., LLC
In a suit against an electric utility and an air-quality-management district under the Clean Air Act, seeking to halt the construction of a power plant, denial of a preliminary injunction and dismissal with prejudice of all claims are affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of some claims presented the appellate court with a final order over which it had jurisdiction; and 2) the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims.
[11/07]
In Re: Series 7 Broker Qualification Exam Scoring Litig.
In a class action asserting breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation by the administrator of the broker qualification exam arising out of erroneous reporting of applicants' scores, dismissal of claims is affirmed where common law causes of action cannot be alleged against a Self-Regulatory Organization for the negligent performance of its duties under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
[11/05]
Humphries v. County of Los Angeles
California's maintenance of the California's Child Abuse Central Index (CACI), which is a database of known or suspected child abusers, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because identified individuals are not given a fair opportunity to challenge the allegations against them.
[11/04]
Emergency Coalition to Defend Educ. Travel v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury
In a suit challenging the Office of Foreign Asset Control's amendments to regulations governing educational travel to Cuba, dismissal of all claims is affirmed where: 1) at least one plaintiff had standing to challenge the regulations, and there was therefore appellate jurisdiction; but 2) the travel restrictions were content-neutral and did not violate plaintiffs-professors' First Amendment rights; and 3) there was no violation of plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment right to travel internationally.
[10/30]
Turner v. Ass'n of American Med. Colleges
In a case brought by takers of the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) claiming a right to reasonable accommodations for reading-related disabilities and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), judgment in favor of plaintiffs and order awarding plaintiffs attorney's fees and costs are reversed where the Unruh Civil Rights Act and Disabled Persons Act (DPA) do not require accommodations for learning and reading-related disabilities on standardized tests.
[10/29]
Univ. of Chicago v. US
In a suit over assessments of FICA taxes on plaintiff's retirement plans for its employees, summary judgment for the government is affirmed where: 1) the IRS properly assessed the plaintiff for FICA taxes for contributions made pursuant to salary reduction agreements under the plans; and 2) plaintiff was also liable for failure-to-deposit and failure-to-pay penalties.
[10/27]
Kay v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago
In a suit seeking wages and retirement benefits under the terms of a settlement reached in a federal civil-rights suit, dismissal in favor of arbitration is vacated and case remanded for dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where: 1) the trial judge could not invoke an arbitration clause sua sponte; and 2) the arbitration clause relied upon in this case was not applicable to plaintiff's claims; but 3) the claim at issue was not a retaliation claim that could be adjudicated under federal law, but had been converted by the prior settlement into a state action to enforce a contract.
[10/14]
Laskowski v. Spellings
In an Establishment Clause suit attempting to enjoin a government grant to the University of Notre Dame, dismissal for mootness is affirmed on remand from the Supreme Court where: 1) the expiration of the grant mooted plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief against the Secretary of Education; and 2) plaintiffs lacked standing as taxpayers to pursue a restitutionary remedy against the university.
More...
[11/18]
Surrey v. TrueBeginnings
In a case of first impression in California involving an online matchmaking service, someone who presents him or herself to a business with the intent of purchasing its services or products, but becomes aware of that business's practice of charging different amounts for such services or products based on gender and thereafter does not purchase those services or products, is not aggrieved by that practice so as to have standing to sue for violations of the Unruh Act and the Gender Tax Repeal Act. The court adopts a bright-line rule that a person must tender the purchase price for a business's services or products in order to have standing to sue it for alleged discriminatory practices relating thereto.
[11/14]
Cadles of Grassy Meadows II, LLC v. Goldner
Petition for panel rehearing granted, prior opinion withdrawn, and matter remanded for further proceedings in light of Kerlin v. Sauceda, 05-0653 (Tex. October 10, 2008).
[11/12]
Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg.
In an action alleging, inter alia, copyright and trademark infringement involving the original and remade motion pictures "Gone in 60 Seconds", as well as products relating to the film, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where the district court erred in: 1) refusing to use extrinsic evidence submitted by plaintiffs to aid in its interpretation of an agreement between the parties, finding that such evidence did not show that the agreement was reasonably susceptible to plaintiffs' interpretation; 2) interpreting disputed language in an agreement between plaintiff and a non-party corporation; 3) applying the wrong legal standard in finding that plaintiffs did not have statutory standing to assert trademark infringement and unfair competition claims; and 4) concluding that plaintiffs did not have statutory or Article III standing to assert claims for declaratory relief.
[11/12]
Hoopes v. Dolan
In a suit by plaintiff-commercial tenant against his landlord for exclusive parking rights under his lease, a judgment for defendants despite a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the trial court erred in disregarding the jury's verdict when fashioning equitable relief founded on the same evidence and the same operative facts as the verdict; 2) however, the defense of equitable estoppel was a matter within the exclusive province of the trial judge and it raised legal and factual issues undecided by the jury; and 3) while the trial court should have considered the equitable defense first, the order of trial was within the court's discretion and did not divest the judge of his duty to determine applicability of equitable estoppel.
[11/10]
Bus. Sys. Eng'g, Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.
In a diversity suit alleging a breach of contract when defendant allegedly failed to utilize and pay for the full value of work agreed upon with plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where only individual statements of work and their corresponding purchase orders constituted contractual agreements between the parties, and no other enforceable agreements existed.
[11/07]
Aquila, Inc. v. C.W. Mining
In a contract action involving a contract between the parties wherein defendant supplied plaintiff-public utility periodic shipments of coal from defendant's mine, a judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to prove that its performance was excused by virtue of a force majeure labor dispute, and the district court did not err in finding that geological problems caused defendant's difficulties; 2) defendant failed to offer any evidence to determine what part of plaintiff's losses were attributable to labor problems versus geological problems, and thus damages could not be reduced without impermissible speculation; 3) even accepting for argument's sake a claim that Missouri does not enforce contract provisions requiring written notice of a force majeure when actual notice of a force majeure exists, the circumstances here did not support the claim; 4) plaintiff did not waive its claim for breach of contract; and 5) it properly mitigated its damages.
[11/07]
Wagner & Wagner Auto Sales, Inc. v. Land Rover N. Am., Inc.
In an action brought by a car dealership against Land Rover under the Automobile Dealer's Day in Court Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1222 (ADDCA), and the Massachusetts "Dealer's Bill of Rights" arising from defendant's termination of the parties' Dealer Agreement, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) as plaintiff was undeniably in breach of its contractual obligations, defendant had good cause to terminate the agreement; 2) there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of defendant; 3) the district court correctly found on the undisputed facts that defendant had repeatedly offered plaintiff reasonable opportunity to cure; and 4) there was no evidence of any oral modification sufficient to overcome a presumption that a 2004 letter of intent expressed the intent of the parties.
[11/06]
In the Matter Of: Entringer Bakeries Inc.
In a bankruptcy trustee's action to avoid two pre-petition transfers made by debtor to creditor-bank, judgment for trustee is affirmed and award vacated where: 1) the "earmarking" doctrine did not apply and the payments were therefore impermissible preferential transfers; and 2) the entire transfer, not just a part of it, could be avoided under section 547(c)(2) of the bankruptcy code.
[11/06]
Moglia v. Pac. Employers Ins. Co.
In a bankruptcy-related action in which debtor's trustee sought partial release of letters of credit issued by debtor to defendants-insurers, and defendants in turn sought to enforce an arbitration provision in the policies, trustee's appeal of a district court order compelling arbitration is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where: 1) the trustee could be required to sign the arbitrator's hold-harmless agreement; 2) an appeal from the order to sign the agreement was interlocutory in nature, and appellate review was not available; and 3) the court could not review the order under the doctrine of pendent appellate jurisdiction.
[11/05]
E.S.S. Entm't 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc.
In an action brought by the operator of a strip club in Los Angeles against the producer of a video game in the "Grand Theft Auto" series claiming, inter alia, that the game's depiction of a strip club called the "Pig Pen" infringed its trademark and trade dress associated with the "Play Pen", summary judgment for defendant-game producer is affirmed where: 1) modification of plaintiff's trademark was not explicitly misleading and was thus protected by the First Amendment; and 2) the First Amendment defense applies equally to plaintiff's state law claims as to its Lanham Act claim.
More...
[11/12]
Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg.
In an action alleging, inter alia, copyright and trademark infringement involving the original and remade motion pictures "Gone in 60 Seconds", as well as products relating to the film, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where the district court erred in: 1) refusing to use extrinsic evidence submitted by plaintiffs to aid in its interpretation of an agreement between the parties, finding that such evidence did not show that the agreement was reasonably susceptible to plaintiffs' interpretation; 2) interpreting disputed language in an agreement between plaintiff and a non-party corporation; 3) applying the wrong legal standard in finding that plaintiffs did not have statutory standing to assert trademark infringement and unfair competition claims; and 4) concluding that plaintiffs did not have statutory or Article III standing to assert claims for declaratory relief.
[11/05]
E.S.S. Entm't 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc.
In an action brought by the operator of a strip club in Los Angeles against the producer of a video game in the "Grand Theft Auto" series claiming, inter alia, that the game's depiction of a strip club called the "Pig Pen" infringed its trademark and trade dress associated with the "Play Pen", summary judgment for defendant-game producer is affirmed where: 1) modification of plaintiff's trademark was not explicitly misleading and was thus protected by the First Amendment; and 2) the First Amendment defense applies equally to plaintiff's state law claims as to its Lanham Act claim.
[10/29]
Bernardi v. County of Monterey
Order awarding attorney's fees under Government Code section 6259(d) is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the lodestar amount, calculated by multiplying the number of attorney, law student and paralegal hours by the hourly market rate for each of their services, should have been reduced by two-thirds to reflect plaintiff's partial success, which the defendant described as a "lack of success on two of [her] three central demands"; and 2) plaintiff was not entitled to a lodestar enhancement in light of her partial success.
[10/21]
US v. McTiernan
In a case involving an alleged former client of notorius Hollywood private investigator Anthony Pellicano, conviction for making a false statement to an FBI agent is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) a defendant can show fair and just reason to allow withdrawal of a guilty plea by showing that proper legal advice on the suppressibility of evidence could plausibly have motivated a reasonable person not to have pled guilty; 2) defendant's plea was elicited by a recording previously made by Pellicano which contradicted defendant's statements to the FBI; and 3) recordings made with the intent to violate state or federal law are suppressible under 18 U.S.C. section 2511.
[10/10]
Licciardello v. Lovelady
In an action for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act brought by a Christian musician and entertainer against his former manager, grant of motion to dismiss for lack of persona jurisdiction is reversed and remanded where: 1) the Constitution was not offended by the exercise of Florida's longarm statute to effect personal jurisdiction over defendant because his intentional conduct in his state of residence was calculated to cause injury to plaintiff in Florida; and 2) the Constitution was not offended by Florida's assertion of its jurisdiction over such nonresident tortfeasors.
[09/25]
Direct TV, Inc. v. Webb
In a dispute arising from piracy of satellite television signals, a judgment of unauthorized reception of broadcast signals in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 605(e)(4), 18 U.S.C. section 2511(1)(a) and 47 U.S.C. section 605(a) is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) 47 U.S.C. section 605(e)(4) does not apply to end users of pirate access devices; and 2) though circumstantial evidence can sustain claims under 18 U.S.C. section 2511(1)(a) and 47 U.S.C. section 605(a), possession of multiple pirate access devices does not constitute multiple violations of these statutes.
[09/23]
Barboza v. New Form, Inc.
In a case considering whether damages for willful copyright infringement are dischargeable debt in the infringer's bankruptcy, summary judgment that such damages are non-dischargeable is reversed and remanded where: 1) there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the willful copyright infringement was a willful injury under Bankruptcy Code section 523(a)(6); and 2) the maliciousness requirement of Bankruptcy Code section 523(a)(6) was not addressed separately from the willfulness requirement.
[09/11]
Bartel v. NBC Universal, Inc.
In a breach-of-contract suit by a producer fired by defendant after she had raised concerns about ethics violations in defendant's "To Catch a Predator" news segment, dismissal for failure to state a claim is affirmed where: 1) the unambiguous language of the employment contract allowed defendant to fire plaintiff when and how it did; and 2) there was no implied term in the employment contract restricting defendant from firing plaintiff for reporting breaches of journalistic ethics.
[09/09]
Facenda v. N.F.L. Films, Inc.
In a suit by the estate of a broadcaster claiming that defendant's use of the broadcaster's voice in a program about the video game "Madden NFL 06" constituted false endorsement and unauthorized use of name or likeness, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) the program was commercial speech made to promote the game, and no First Amendment defense applied; 2) evaluating false-endorsement claims under the Lanham Act required the use of a factors test to determine the likelihood of confusion; 3) a standard-release contract between plaintiff and defendant regarding the use of voice recordings was not a complete bar to plaintiff's claim; 4) there were triable issues of fact on the false-endorsement claim as to whether there was a likelihood of confusion; and 5) federal copyright law did not expressly or impliedly preempt plaintiff's state-law right-of-publicity claim.
[08/14]
Alch v. Time Warner Entertainment Co.
In a class action suit against studios, networks, production companies, and talent agencies asserting an industry-wide pattern and practice of age discrimination, writ petition by television writers to allow access to certain data on Writers Guild members is granted where trial court acted beyond its discretion when it sustained all objections of third parties to the disclosure of subpoenaed information on privacy grounds.
More...
|
