In an action claiming that plaintiff was entitled to part of an amount refunded by the Federal Trade Commission following a judgment against plaintiff and defendants, dismissal of the action as untimely is affirmed where defendant’s actions in raising the reserve requirement of entities partially controlled by defendant gave rise to plaintiff’s claims in 2000, and therefore the statute of limitations began to run at that time. Read Coto Settlement v....
In an employment discrimination case, grant of defendant-board of education’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s retaliatory discharge claim as this does not cover renewal of a fixed-term employment contract; 2) plaintiff’s retaliatory discharge claim fails for another reason because the nonrenewal of her contract did not violate a clear mandate of public policy; 3) district court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim as she failed to demonstrate that the board either delegated final policymaking authority to her supervisor or ratified their actions; but 4) for purposes of a national origin discrimination claim, plaintiff demonstrated triable issues as to whether the discrimination motivated the adverse employment action based on circumstantial evidence of her supervisor’s racist remarks and nonrenewal of her contract based on his recommendation....
US v. Wilson, 08-1963, concerned a challenge to the district court’s imposition of a 48-month sentence in a prosecution of defendant for mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1341. In vacating and remanding for resentencing, the court held that the district court committed plain error by selecting defendant’s sentence based on the clearly erroneous notion that she was responsible for the theft of fifteen hundred financial instruments. The court also held that the district court’s reliance upon plainly incorrect facts affected defendant’s substantial rights because there is a reasonable probability that, without the incorrect reliance, she would have received a more favorable sentence....
Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Suit for Forum Non Conveniens Affirmed Eurofins Pharma US Holdings v. BioAlliance Pharma SA, 09-3790, concerned a challenge to the district court’s dismissal of the suit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, in a dispute involving the acquisition of intellectual property that includes in vitro phenotyping technology that assists in the development and administration of drugs used to treat HIV and Hepatitis B by testing the effectiveness of those drugs on specific patients’ viruses....
In a set-back to brand-name drug companies, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for a generic drug-manufacturer to sell its products after gaining approval from the Food and Drug Administration. The court lifted an injunction against Sandoz, Inc., which markets a biologic drug to stimulate production of white blood cells. The company had been marketing Zarxio in the United States, until Amgen, Inc. obtained an injunction for alleged patent infringement in Sandoz v....
In Wynne v. Renico, No. 03-2319, the Sixth Circuit faced a challenge to the district court’s grant of defendant’s petition for habeas relief from his murder conviction and a life sentence. In reversing the district court’s judgment granting relief, the court held that Fed. Rule 404(b) applies to all propensity evidence, whether used to show that the defendant or another individual acted in conformity with their prior misconduct, and the Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense does not imply a right to offer evidence that is otherwise inadmissible under the standard rules of evidence....
A judge ruled that a township board in Minnesota can’t burden a family living on the end of a township road by not maintaining it. This may not sound like earthshaking news, but in Minnesota, the plight of the Crisman family in its legal fight with Hillman Township has captured broad public attention as a class quarrel between entrenched locals and newly arrived outsiders. The dispute started in 2017, after the Crisman family decided to leave the metropolitan Twin Cities and live in the country....
In an action brought by the trustee of a litigation trust, resulting from a bankruptcy proceeding, in which the trustee alleged misconduct by corporate insiders and advisers, the Court of Appeals certifies the following questions to the Court of Appeals of New York: 1) the over-arching question whether the allegations of the complaint in this case satisfied the “adverse interest” exception to the Wagoner rule of imputing insiders’ misconduct to their corporation, and the following subsidiary questions subsumed within that ultimate question: 2) whether the adverse interest exception was satisfied by showing that the insiders intended to benefit themselves by their misconduct; 3) whether the exception was available only where the insiders’ misconduct harmed the corporation; 4) if harm was required, whether the analysis of such harm could include any detriment to a corporation resulting from the eventual unmasking of the misconduct; 5) if harm was required, whether such harm could be determined by considering a corporation and its related corporations as a single enterprise; 6) if harm was required and was to be determined with respect to separate though related corporations, whether the complaint adequately alleged such harm; 7) whether the exception was precluded where the misconduct conferred some benefit upon the corporation; and 8) if the adverse interest exception were otherwise available, would it be precluded by the “sole actor” rule?...
In the wake of George Floyd’s murder, Illinois enacted a package of sweeping criminal justice reforms set to go into effect in January 2023. Part of that package, the Pretrial Fairness Act (PFA), eliminates cash bail for those accused of crimes and makes it harder to detain suspects before trial. Critics have dubbed it “the ‘Purge’ Law,” after the dystopian horror film in which all crime, including murder, is temporarily legalized once per year....
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of an employee’s slip and fall injury accident case against the Cabot Oil and Gas company, and the drilling outfit, Patterson UTI, where he worked. However, the lawsuit was not dismissed on summary judgment, nor via the all too familiar 12(b)(6), but rather via a 12(b)(2) jurisdictional challenge. In short, both the district and appellate courts ruled that the court did not have sufficient jurisdiction over the defendants due to their lack of contact with the state of New Jersey, where the case was filed....
FindLaw columnist Eric Sinrod writes regularly in this section on legal developments surrounding technology and the internet. Frustrated by privacy lapses by US companies, Democrat Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon has introduced proposed federal legislation referred to as the Mind Your Own Business Act (the Act). If enacted, this law could put serious teeth into efforts to protect consumer data. Serious Penalties for Noncompliance Indeed, the Act could cause certain executives to find themselves in prison for as many as twenty years if their companies are found to have lied to legal authorities about improper use of consumers’ personal information....
EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co., No. 06-17261, involved an action by the EEOC alleging that, in maintaining its employment preference for Navajo workers, defendant discriminated against non-Navajo Indians, including two members of the Hopi Nation and one member of the Otoe tribe, in violation of Title VII. The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for defendant, on the grounds that 1) the amended complaint filed by the EEOC after remand did not render it infeasible to join the Navajo Nation; 2) the Secretary of the Interior was a required party under Rule 19(a), and joining him was not feasible; 3) plaintiff could not bring a third-party damages claim against the Secretary under Fed....
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to add a handful of cases to their docket. Among the seven new cases is a familiar issue: partisan gerrymandering. While the Gil v. Whitford case is still under submission, the High Court will hear a slightly different challenge to the practice of political parties gerrymandering voting districts after winning a controlling majority in a state’s legislature. Gil dealt with an equal protection challenge, while the new case, Benisek v....
Boudwin v. Hastings Bay Marina, Inc., No. 09-2393, concerned a negligence action for injuries plaintiff sustained when he fell into a hatch in a boat on defendant-marina’s premises. The court affirmed summary judgment for defendant on the grounds that 1) no reasonable jury could find in favor of plaintiff under typical respondeat superior grounds; and 2) no reasonably prudent person would believe the harbor master had the authority to break into a boat, irrespective of his statements to the contrary, which were irrelevant for purposes of the apparent authority inquiry....
In an action by a public employee claiming that defendants retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment for reporting workplace violence, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where the speaker’s motive is not dispositive of whether the speech is on a matter of public concern. Read Sousa v. Roque, No. 07-1892 Appellate Information Argued: November 5, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2009 Judges Opinion by Judge Cabranes Counsel For Appellant:...
In a suit brought by the family of an individual who died eleven months after being in police custody for public intoxication, denial of a summary judgment motion by an officer and the City of Cleveland is reversed and remanded where: 1) plaintiffs have not established the obvious existence of a sufficiently serious medical need; 2) there is no evidence that the officer was aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm existed, and that he drew that inference and chose to disregard the risk; 3) as such, because no constitutional violation occurred, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity; and 4) the city is entitled to summary judgment because the record as a whole does not support an inference that a reasonable trier of fact could find a causal connection between either officer’s actions or the police chief’s no-transport policy and the decedent’s injuries....
Norman v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 09-2651, concerned an action claiming that defendant terminated plaintiff based on race, gender, and a perceived disability. The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, holding that plaintiff’s failure to submit a return-to-work release defeated her claim that her termination resulted from the designation of her disability as a mental illness. In US v. Fronk, No. 09-2876, the court of appeals affirmed defendant’s sentence for obtaining a controlled substance by fraud, on the grounds that 1) the district court was entitled to consider defendant’s post-plea attempted procurement of unauthorized medications and the content of her letter to the court in determining whether she had clearly demonstrated acceptance of responsibility; and 2) the district court was aware of, and considered, her lack of a criminal history, her medical conditions, her letters of support, and the 18 U....
District court order granting a motion to suppress evidence is affirmed where: 1) the seizure of defendant’s bag from a bus cargo bay, without reasonable suspicion, violated his Fourth Amendment rights; and 2) even if defendant voluntarily consented to the subsequent search of his wallet, the government failed to demonstrate that the causal connection between the illegal seizures and defendant’s consent was broken, and thus evidence found in the wallet was fruit of the poisonous tree and properly suppressed....
The wonders of modern technology – in this case, Zoom and its videoconferencing ilk – have allowed the American court system to function even as society locks down for the coronavirus. No doubt this is a good thing. But is there a negative side? Now that we have several months of experience with virtual courts, maybe it’s a good time to ask the question: How are they working out? The answer, according to attorneys and litigants, is very much a mixed bag....
Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, handle many important and controversial cases. As just one example, lawsuits challenging abortion rights are brought in federal court each year like clockwork. Considering the number of federal court decisions involving the pro-choice/pro-life debate in recent years, why is Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health, currently before the Supreme Court, any different? Put simply, because it has the potential to be the most noteworthy case since Roe v....
