FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Civil Procedure

Kimbrough v. State of Cal.

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Attorney's Fees, Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure) In an action claiming that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR) grooming regulations concerning hair length interfered with plaintiff's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, the district court's award of attorney's fees to plaintiff is reversed where, because the district court did not actually adjudicate plaintiff's claims, the Ninth Circuit's decision in Siripongs foreclosed an award of attorneys' fees in this case.

Lal v. State of Cal.

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Criminal Law & Procedure, Ethics & Professional Responsibility, Injury And Tort Law) In an action against the California Highway Patrol and certain officers for the shooting death of plaintiff's husband, dismissal of the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute when her attorney failed to meet deadlines and attend hearings is reversed where an attorney's gross negligence constituted an extraordinary circumstance warranting relief from a judgment dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).

Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins., Co. v. Bezich

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Contracts, Insurance Law, Securities Law) A petition for permission to appeal, arising from the district court's remand of plaintiff's class action lawsuit against an insurer for breach of contract claims on the basis that CAFA's exception to federal jurisdiction for the action applied, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiff's claim "related to the rights, duties,...and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to...a security," as defined in the Securities Act of 1933.

Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr.

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Evidence, Labor & Employment Law, Remedies) In plaintiff's Title VII suit against her former employer for being fired in retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment by residents of defendant's nursing home, district court's denial of defendant's motions for a new trial and remittitur are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff presented enough evidence to persuade a reasonable jury that her complaints caused defendant to fire her; 2) it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for a new trial on the basis of plaintiff's counsel's closing arguments; 3) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the compensatory damages as enough evidence supported a jury award of $25,000, which is well within the $200,000 cap set out in 42 U.S.C. section 1981a(b)(3)(C); and 4) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the punitive damage award and the logic of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008) does not apply to this Title VII case.

Rathborne Land Co. v. Ascent Engy., Inc.

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 5th Cir., Civil Procedure, Commercial Law, Contracts, Oil & Gas Law, Property Law & Real Estate, Remedies) In an action for breach of defendant's obligations to reasonably develop and explore a leased parcel of oil, gas, and mineral land, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff's letter to defendant met the La. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 31:136 demand requirement; and 2) district court did not clearly err in concluding that plaintiff would have been able to lease the disputed acreage more than once if it had been able to seismically survey the parcel prior to 2006. However, the judgment is vacated in part where neither the district court nor plaintiff could show an adequate ground -- indeed, any relevant precedent -- for awarding consequential damages for lost leasing and seismic revenues on the entire parcel.

Greenspan v. LADT, LLC

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Probate, Trusts & Estates, Property Law & Real Estate) In a trust's suit for breach of contract and other claims against two affiliated companies and individuals, trial court's confirmation of an arbitrator's award against defendants in the amount of $6.34 million is affirmed where: 1) per the JAMS rules, the arbitrator, not a court, determines what issues are arbitrable, and here, the arbitrator determined that the issue of joint and several liability was arbitrable; 2) arbitrator's finding of joint and several liability was rationally related to the parties' contract; 3) as to the timeliness of the final award under JAMS rules, the arbitrator's interpretation and application of the rules cannot be judicially reviewed on the merits; and 4) the suit against the arbitrator was barred by arbitral immunity and would not have caused a reasonable person to doubt the arbitrator's impartiality.

Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l. Brotherhood of Teamsters

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S.S.C., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Labor & Employment Law) In an action against a labor union by an employer, invoking federal jurisdiction under section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), seeking strike-related damages for the unions' alleged breach of contract, and asking for an injunction against the ongoing strike because the hold-harmless dispute was an arbitrable grievance under the new collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the Ninth Circuit's partial affirmance of the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's tortious interference claims and denying defendant's separate motion to send the parties' dispute over the CBA's ratification date to arbitration is affirmed in part where the Ninth Circuit did not err in declining to recognize a new federal common-law cause of action under LMRA section 301(a) for defendant's alleged tortious interference with the CBA. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the parties' dispute over the CBA's ratification date was a matter for the district court, not an arbitrator, to resolve.

Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd.

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S.S.C., Civil Procedure, Securities Law) In a securities fraud action by Australian citizens claiming that defendant corporation and its officers manipulated financial models to make the company's mortgage-servicing rights appear more valuable than they really were, the Second Circuit's affirmance of the dismissal of the action is affirmed where 1) the Second Circuit erred in considering Securities and Exchange Act section 10(b)'s extraterritorial reach to raise a question of subject-matter jurisdiction, thus allowing dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); and 2) section 10(b) did not provide a cause of action to foreign plaintiffs suing foreign and American defendants for misconduct in connection with securities traded on foreign exchanges.

Bifulco v. Patient Bus. & Fin. Serv., Inc.

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(Fla., Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law, Workers' Compensation) In plaintiff's wrongful termination suit against her former employer, Fifth District's reversal of trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as workers' compensation retaliation claims brought against the state under section 440.205 are not subject to the presuit notice requirements of section 768.28(6)

Shaw v. Sec'y of Human & Health Serv.

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Administrative Law, Attorney's Fees, Civil Procedure, Drugs & Biotech, Government Law, Health Law) In an appeal of a Special Master's decision to award plaintiff's undisputed portion of his request for interim attorneys' fees and costs and deferring consideration of the remaining amount until submission of a final petition for fees and costs in plaintiff's case under the Vaccine Act, Court of Federal Claims' dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is reversed as 42 U.S.C. section 12(e) confers jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims to review interim attorney fee decisions as an interim attorney fee decision is a separate decision on compensation, and as such, is reviewable even when that decision issues prior to a decision on the merits.

Simonia v. Glendale Nissan/Infiniti Disability Plan

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Attorney's Fees, Civil Procedure, ERISA, Labor & Employment Law) In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's denial of his motion for attorney's fees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the order is affirmed where: 1) district courts must consider the Hummell factors after they have determined that a litigant has achieved "some degree of success on the merits,"; but 2) even assuming plaintiff achieved some degree of success on the merits, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that fees are nonetheless inappropriate after applying the Hummell factors.

Muscarello v. Ogle County Bd. of Comm'rs

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 7th Cir., Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Construction, Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate, Public Utilities) In plaintiff's suit against multiple defendants asserting various claims based on the U.S. Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, Illinois statutes, and the common law, arsing from the county's decision to amend its zoning ordinances to allow special permits for the construction of windmills used to generate power, and in particular, the construction of 40 windmills adjacent to plaintiff's property, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's federal takings, equal protection, and due process claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; 2) plaintiff's state law trespass and nuisance claims are not ripe for review; 3) plaintiff has failed to avail herself of the opportunity to allege and support an independent basis of federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the other seven claims; and 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for an administrative stay.

Brown v. Kelly

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Class Actions, Criminal Law & Procedure) In a class action by persons allegedly arrested pursuant to an unconstitutional New York anti-begging statute, the district court's class certification order is affirmed in part where the citywide plaintiff class met the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). However, the order is reversed in part where the district court erred in certifying a statewide defendant class because the defendant class representatives did not meet the adequacy and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), and the district court also erred in certifying a statewide plaintiff class because the certification of this class was contingent on the bilateral certification of both a statewide plaintiff and a statewide defendant class.

Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assoc. Inc.

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Labor & Employment Law) In a suit brought by about 4000 current and former employees against an employer, claiming that the company, which provides security guard services throughout Southern California, denied meal and rest breaks and failed to pay for overtime, trial court's denial of their motion for class certification is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) order denying the motion for class certification as to the meal break class and the rest break class is affirmed as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding common issues of law and fact did not predominate over individual issues; and 2) order denying the motion for class certification as to the overtime-pay class is reversed and remanded.

Rectrix Aerodrome Ctr., Inc. v. Barnstable Mun. Airport Comm'n

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 1st Cir., Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Contracts, Landlord Tenant Law) In plaintiff's suit against an airport commission and individual defendants, claiming that it was prevented from competing with defendant in the sale of jet fuel, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's fraud claim fails as plaintiff was a commercial tenant of the airport and, given the self-service standards and lease terms, had no right and no reasonable expectation of being able to sell jet fuel at the airport; 2) the antitrust claim is barred by the state action doctrine given the Massachusetts statute; and 3) plaintiff's equal protection claim under section 1983 fails as no private entity at the airport has the privilege sought by plaintiff.