Case Summaries
[05/13] Garcia v. Brockway
An aggrieved person must bring a private civil action under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) for a failure to properly design and construct within two years of the completion of the construction phase, which concludes on the date that the last certificate of occupancy is issued. (Panel opinion adopted by the en banc court with amendments)
[05/13] Cao v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
In an action wherein plaintiff sought recovery under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for alleged constitutional violations along with several state law causes of action after she was removed from her home, made to undergo a psychological evaluation, and placed in a state institution for the elderly, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's section 1983 claim as untimely; and 2) with no federal cause of action remaining, the district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.
[05/13] United Stars Indus., Inc. v. Plastech Engineered Prods., Inc.
In an action over monies owed, judgment in favor of plaintiff and sanctions imposed against defendant's attorneys are affirmed where: 1) the compromise that was reached after the initial dispute over pricing and monies owed included defendant's overcharge claims; 2) the contract allowed plaintiff to pass on an increase in costs due to the use of additional materials other than nickel through a surcharge; 3) defendant was liable to pay for the entire cost of the materials bought even though some of it was lost during the production process; and 4) the district judge did not abuse her discretion by sanctioning defendant's lawyers for making unsupported allegations during litigation.
[05/13] Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso CGP Co.
In a suit for collection of withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA), a ruling finding that a proof of claim filed in 1999 in Chapter 7 bankruptcy constituted a statutory demand and cut off defendant's right to contest liability is affirmed where: 1) statutory notice and demand were not met when the plaintiffs filed the notice in Chapter 7 bankruptcy since it must be sent to the employer and Chapter 7 involves a trustee who is neither an agent of the debtor nor a fiduciary of the debtor; 2) notice to former members of the controlled group does not constitute constructive notice for the rest of the group; and 3) the notice did eventually get to the controlled group and they waived arbitration by not initiating the procedure and waiting until they were sued. However, the issue of damages is vacated and remanded where: 1) summary judgment granted to plaintiffs was not based on the motion presented by the plaintiffs; 2) plaintiffs were not given an opportunity to argue their case before summary judgment was granted on the issue of accelerated debt; 3) issues of liquidated damages depends on whether the debt was ever accelerated and when it acceleration occurred; and 4) payments by defendant should have applied first to accrued interest and then the principal.
[05/13] Estate of Pew v. Cardarelli
In an appeal primarily addressing whether a claim fell within the exception to the Class Action Fairness Act's ("CAFA") grant of original and appellate jurisdiction for class actions which solely involve claims concerning certain rights and duties related to any security, the circuit court: 1) rules that the suit at hand does not fall within such exception to CAFA jurisdiction, and thus it has authority to accept an appeal from a remand order; 2) grants defendant's petition for leave to appeal; and 3) reverses the district court's remand order on the merits.
More...
[05/01] Amerisource Corp. v. U.S.
A ruling that there was no compensable taking in the seizure of an innocent third party's property, which was never introduced as evidence in a criminal proceeding and was rendered worthless over the course of the proceedings, is affirmed where: 1) the government seized the goods pursuant to the police power and not for "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment; and 2) the innocence of the third party did not make the seizure of property under the police power a compensable taking.
[04/29] In re: Subpoena in Collins
In an action against GlaxoSmithKline alleging the drug Paxil radically changed an individual's behavior and led him to take his own life, an order quashing a subpoena commanding a a Smithsonian employee to testify at a deposition is reversed and remanded where the federal government's claim to sovereign immunity does not apply to an employee's personal observations and opinions regarding a co-worker's behavior which are unrelated to the employee's official duties.
[04/24] Ackermann v. Wyeth Pharm.
In case brought plaintiff-wife alleging that defendant failed to adequately warn about drug-induced risk of suicide from its drug Effexor, leading to her husband's suicide, summary judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where plaintiff failed to demonstrate causation under the learned-intermediary doctrine.
[04/18] Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass'n v. Dist. of Columbia
In a suit to block a DC law that would require pharmacy benefit managers to act as fiduciaries, to disclose the content of their contracts with pharmacies and manufacturers, and to pass on any payments or discounts they receive from pharmacies or manufacturers, summary judgment for the District is vacated and remanded where the case involved unmixed questions of law and: 1) application of collateral estoppel would freeze the development of the law in an area of substantial public interest; and 2) the legal context changed subsequent to after the first decision.
[04/14] BASF AG v. Great Am. Assurance Co.
In a suit seeking to recover damages from defendants-insurers for their failure to defend and indemnify plaintiff during a suit over the marketing of a synthetic thyroid drug, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed and remanded where the terms of the insurance policies, as a matter of law, did not obligate the insurers to defend or indemnify plaintiff.
More...
[05/13] Lawrence v. Dep't of the Interior
In an action brought by an Indian tribe member employed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) challenging the denial of increased retirement benefits payable to employees whose duties included firefighting, summary judgment for the BIA is affirmed where: 1) the government did not waive the time limit of 5 C.F.R. section 831.906(e) by failing to provide actual notice of the new time limit for filing to current employees; 2) the federal government's trust responsibility toward Indian tribes imposes no special notice obligation beyond that enunciated in the aforementioned rule; 3) the Indian Preference Act does not apply, and the regular provisions of the Civil Service Regulations govern plaintiff as they do any other employee; and 4) summary judgment on a disparate impact claim was proper.
[05/08] US v. Pete
A conviction for second degree murder on an Indian reservation, felony murder, and conspiracy to commit murder, is affirmed where: 1) the entire period from the time defendant filed his "Motion to Recall the Mandate" on December 23, 2004, up until the Supreme Court denied his certiorari petition on June 20, 2005, was excludable; and 2) thus, the Speedy Trial Act (STA) was not violated and a motion to dismiss the indictment was properly denied.
[05/06] House v. Bravo
In habeas proceedings arising from petitioner's conviction for driving while intoxicated, vehicular homicide, and related offenses, denial of the habeas petition is affirmed over challenges alleging that: 1) a transfer of venue improperly eliminated all Native American members from the venire; 2) court misapplied federal law by failing to conduct voir dire before presuming that an entire county venire was tainted by pretrial publicity, and transferring venue; 3) the state's discriminatory use of a New Mexico venue transfer statute constituted a structural error that violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights; 4) the state court erred in its sentencing decision; and 5) the trial court's refusal to recuse at resentencing violated the defendant's right to due process.
[04/29] Michigan Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne
In an action alleging that agency approval of a proposed casino violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the unconstitutionality of section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not violate NEPA; and 2) section 5 of the IRA is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.
[04/10] Erika K. v. Brett D.
In a case in which the Indian Child Welfare Act applied in child custody proceedings, an order awarding custody is reversed and remanded where: 1) although the family court did not err in applying the Family Code's custody provisions; nevertheless 2) the court erroneously concluded that the ICWA was unconstitutional before applying its substantive provisions.
More...
|
