In re: Baycol Prods. Litig., No. 09-1964, involved a product liability action.  The district court reversed the district court’s denial of appellants’ motion to substitute as plaintiffs for their deceased mother, holding that the district court erred in relying upon a California procedural statute when it declared that appellants were not proper parties, rather than relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1).

In US v. Schiradelly, No. 09-3306, the court affirmed defendant’s sentence for larceny and assault, on the grounds that 1) it was clear that the plea agreement’s sentencing recommendation was merely a recommendation; 2) because the sentencing recommendation in defendant’s agreement remained non-binding under Rule 11(c)(1)(B), the district court did not violate the plea agreement; and 3) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to depart upward 3 levels based on the circumstances of the offense and the dismissed charges.

Khoury v. Philips Med. Systems, No. 09-3276, involved a product liability action based on injuries sustained by plaintiff-doctor in using defendant’s medical equipment.  The court affirmed summary judgment for defendant on the grounds that 1) an expert’s testimony was essential to plaintiff’s ability to prove his claim; and 2) plaintiff was required, as a proponent of expert testimony, to prove, among other things, that the expert was qualified and his opinion is reliable.

Related Resources

  • Full Text of In re: Baycol Prods. Litig., No. 09-1964
  • Full Text of US v. Sanchez, No. 09-2996
  • Full Text of US v. Schiradelly, No. 09-3306
  • Full Text of Khoury v. Philips Med. Systems, No. 09-3276

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules