Case Summaries
[09/01] Mwasaru v. Napolitano
A Kenyan citizen's appeal of a district court's order dismissing her petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking a court order compelling U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to transfer her file to an immigration judge to commence removal proceedings, review by the IJ of the denial of adjustment status, and the issuance of a diversity visa should the IJ approve her application, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as section 1154 rendered petitioner ineligible for a DV-2007 visa as of midnight on September 30, 2007, and therefore, she is likewise ineligible for adjustment of status under section 1255 because no visa is immediately available.
[09/01] US ex rel. SNAPP v. Ford Motor Co.
District court's denial of plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint concluding that the proposed amended complaint, which included a list of contracts that the government allegedly entered into as a result of fraudulent representations on the part of Ford, did not allege with sufficient particularity the existence of a "claim" as defined by the False Claims Act (FCA), is affirmed as, because no holding of Bledsoe II affected the circuit's law on the questions at issue before the district court, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that its original rationale for not permitting plaintiff to file its second amended complaint pursuant to Rule 59(e) still obtained and that permitting such a filing was not otherwise "required in order to prevent an injustice."
[09/01] Smith v. Selma Cmty. Hosp.
In plaintiff's successful suit against a hospital to have his hospital privileges reinstated, trial court's denial of his motion for attorney fees is reversed and remanded where: 1) when the conditions contained in section 809.9 are shown, the prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees; 2) the statutory phrase "frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or in bad faith," set forth separate grounds for an award of attorney fees; 3) the terms "frivolous," "unreasonable" and "without foundation" are objective standards that might overlap; 4) the term "bad faith" is a subjective standard concerned with a defendant's motives for defending or litigating a lawsuit; and 5) because a defendant's subjective state of mind is usually proven by circumstantial evidence, a defendant's prelitigaton conduct and postlitigation conduct are relevant evidence from which inferences can be drawn regarding its motives in defending or litigating a lawsuit.
[09/01] Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elec. Corp.
In a patent infringement suit pertaining to various electrical and mechanical components of video cassette players and recorders (VCRs), judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment of infringement of three patents and the damages for the infringement are affirmed; and 2) district court's determination of no successor liability in applying the South Korean law is reversed and remanded.
[08/31] Florida Dep't of State v. Mangat
Judgment of the circuit court, finding that the ballot summary for Amendment 9, for creating a new section related to health care services in article I of the Florida Constitution, does not meet the requirements of section 101.161 and therefore may not be included on the November 2010 ballot is affirmed as, the ballot language put forth by the party proposing the constitutional amendment contains misleading and ambiguous language and the only recourse is to strike the proposed amendment from the ballot.
[08/31] Roberts v. Brown
Secretary of State's petition for extraordinary writ and a petition for a writ of prohibition on the basis that the Second Circuit Court is acting in excess of its jurisdiction by accepting jurisdiction to consider a pre-election action for declaratory and injunctive relief that seeks to remove two citizen-initiative proposed constitutional amendments from the November ballot, is granted and the circuit court is directed to dismiss the pre-election proceedings on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the circuit court's determination that it retains subject matter jurisdiction to consider a pre-election to consider the respondents' challenges to Amendments 5 and 6, the circuit court is encroaching on the Supreme Court of Florida's exclusive jurisdiction and is acting in excess of its jurisdiction.
More...
[09/01] Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
In a patent infringement suit related to a drug for postmenopausal osteoporosis, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) the record amply supports the district court's conclusion that the ordinary artisan would not have considered it obvious to use raloxifene to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis; 2) because the district court's conclusion that the Bone Loss Patents would not have been obvious, its conclusion as to the Low Dose Patent is affirmed as well; 3) district court did not err in concluding that the Bone Loss Patents and the Low Dose Patents were not invalid for lack of enablement; 4) the district court did not clearly err in invalidating the asserted claims of the Particle Size Patents for lack of written description.
[08/27] Cedillo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Serv.
In plaintiff's suit brought under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, claiming a link between childhood vaccines and autism, Court of Federal Claims' affirmance of a Special Master's denial of petitioners' claim for compensation on behalf of their daughter is affirmed as, after careful review of the Special Master's decision, the court finds that it is rationally supported by the evidence, well-articulated, and reasonable.
[08/23] Eli Lilly & Co. v. Air Express Int'l. USA, Inc.
In an action concerning the spoliation of temperature-sensitive insulin products, which were shipped by air from France to Indiana and were exposed to sub-freezing temperatures en route, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where summary judgment was appropriately granted on the issue of whether the cargo was damaged in transit. However, the order is reversed in part where the parties did not intend for the liability provision of the long-term service agreement to subject the air waybill contracts to increased limits of liability.
[08/18] Wimbush v. Wyeth
In plaintiff's suit against a diet pill manufacturer claiming strict liability and common law negligence, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) it was proper to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment on a strict liability design defect claim as plaintiff failed to point to any evidence creating a factual dispute as to the adequacy of warning; 2) summary judgment for defendant on post-FDA approval negligence claims is affirmed as plaintiff failed to point to any actual evidence in a particularized manner; and 3) district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant on preemption grounds on plaintiff's pre-approval common law negligence claims as FDA approval does not automatically preempt state law tort claims for negligence.
[08/17] Rivera v. First Databank, Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit for negligence and breach of contract against a publisher of medication information, referred to as "monographs", claiming that defendant was negligent in preparing the Paxil monograph given to plaintiff-decedent (who committed suicide shortly after he began to use the medication for stress), because it should have included the so-called "black box" suicide warning issued by the FDA, trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in finding the publication of the monograph is not "free speech in connection with public issue or an issue of public interest, and defendant has shown that the contents of the monographs fall within the statute; 2) section 425.17(c) does not bar the anti-SLAPP motion; 3) plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that defendant owed them any duty as defendant is neither the manufacturer of Paxil, nor the pharmacy dispensing it; and 4) plaintiffs' breach of contract claim fails as they failed to substantiate their allegations that defendant owed them any duty vis-a-vis the monograph.
[08/12] Eli Lilly & Co. v. Gottstein
More...
[08/20] Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians v. State of California
In an action by Indian tribes claiming a breach of Gaming Compacts between the tribes and California, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where the limit on licenses in the Compacts exceeded that recognized by California.
[08/09] Oneida Indian Nation v. Cty. of Oneida
In an action by the Oneida Indian Nation claiming that the State of New York wrongfully appropriated its lands, partial summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where Cayuga was controlling, and thus all claims dependent on the assertion of a current possessory interest in the subject lands were barred by equitable defenses. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) plaintiffs' purportedly nonpossessory claim was also barred, both by New York’s sovereign immunity and by the equitable principles applied in Cayuga; and 2) on the same basis, the alternative nonpossessory claim articulated on appeal by the plaintiffs, premised on a violation of the Nonintercourse Act, was also barred.
[08/05] US v. I.L.
A district court's order transferring defendant for adult criminal prosecution on assault and murder charges is affirmed where the district court correctly construed 18 U.S.C. section 5032 to grant the authority to transfer defendant for adult criminal prosecution without the Omaha Tribe's consent.
[08/03] US v. Cook
Defendant's sentence for engaging in and attempting to engage in sexual contact with the intent to abuse the victim in Indian country is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding defendant's criminal history category understated his actual criminal history and likelihood of recidivism.
[07/30] Bingham v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
In plaintiffs' Takings Clause suit against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Town of Mashpee, framed as a class action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated descendants of the Mashpee Wampanoag Indians, district court's dismissal of the suit concluding that plaintiffs lack standing is affirmed as there is no jurisdiction to hear the case because, even when viewing all factual allegations in plaintiffs' favor, plaintiffs cannot show they have suffered a personal injury as a result of the challenged state actions.
[07/30] Menominee Indian Tribe v. US
In a breach-of-contract action by a government contractor, the district court's dismissal of the action is reversed where: 1) the limitations period in 41 U.S.C. section 605(a) was subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases; and 2) the district court incorrectly calculated the length of the tribe's delay in filing suit.
More...
|
