Case Summaries

[02/02] Lore v. City of Syracuse
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.

[02/02] Gentry v. Siegel
In bankruptcy proceedings in which former employees of the debtor filed claims for unpaid overtime wages, the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of a Rule 9014 motion and its refusal to allow the claimants to pursue class actions is affirmed, where: 1) the bankruptcy court was within its discretion to rule that the bankruptcy process would provide a process superior to the class action process for resolving the claims of former employees; 2) notice of the bankruptcy process to the named claimants was not constitutionally deficient; and 3) with respect to unnamed claimants, the named claimants lacked standing to challenge the notice.

[02/02] Marcavage v. National Park Service
In an action by an abortion protester under 42 USC Section 1983 against the National Park Service, the United States Department of the Interior, and two Park Service rangers, alleging violations of the plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause based on his arrest, the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state claim is affirmed, where: 1) the rangers were entitled to qualified immunity from the First and Fourth Amendment claims; 2) the plaintiff's "class of one" theory of an equal protection violation failed because he was not in all relevant respects like the others who shared the sidewalk on which he was arrested; and 3) the plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were properly dismissed as moot because of a change in Park Service regulations.

[02/02] Lewow v. Surfside III Condominium Owners' Ass'n, Inc.
In a case in which judgment was entered in favor of a condominium association on a complaint for failure to perform its duties, against a plaintiff who subsequently filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the association is affirmed, where: 1) although the motion for fees was not timely filed, there was good cause for the delay, as it was understandable that the association was mistaken on the complex and debatable issue of whether the bankruptcy stay tolled the limitations period; and 2) although the trial court's articulated rationale for granting the fees was erroneous, its acceptance of the association's tolling argument was tantamount to a finding of good cause based on mistake.

[02/02] Eiskamp v. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency
In a suit against a water management agency for declaratory relief and a writ of mandate to challenge increased groundwater augmentation charges for the operators of wells in the agency's jurisdiction, the trial court's judgment in favor of the agency on demurrer is affirmed, where a stipulated agreement in other litigation resolved the plaintiff's issue in favor of the agency, so that the present action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

[02/01] Maxton v. Western States Metals
In a suit alleging negligence and strict liability causes of action based on personal injuries as a result of working with metal products manufactured by the defendants and supplied to the plaintiff's employer, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants on demurrers is affirmed, where: 1) the metal products involved were not inherently dangerous, and no other circumstances justified imposing liability on the defendants for the plaintiff's injuries under the component parts doctrine; 2) the plaintiff did not meet his burden of showing there was a reasonable possibility that the deficiencies in the complaint could be cured by amendment.

More...

[12/01] Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
In an appeal from entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a patent infringement dispute, judgment is affirmed because the district court correctly concluded that subject drug formulation satisfied the requirements for prior invention under 35 U.S.C. section 102(g)(2).

[08/25] Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Aptoex, Inc.
In a patent dispute concerning an FDA-approved nasal spray, judgment of the district court is affirmed where it correctly: 1) granted summary judgment of nonobviousness in favor of plaintiffs; 2) denied summary judgment of obviousness; 3) denied defendants' crime-fraud motion; and 4) dismissed defendants' new claims and defenses.

[08/23] Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.
In a 35 U.S.C. section 291 dispute involving patents related to truncated forms of a protein called Factor VIII, judgment of the district court is affirmed where it did not err in dismissing action for lack of an interference in fact.

[08/18] Brown v. Eli Lilly and Co.
In a wrongful death action alleging death due to mental health treatment with the prescription drug Zyprexa, appeal of summary judgments in favor of defendants is granted and affirmed with respect to one defendant and dismissed with respect to the other.

[07/29] The Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
In a dispute involving jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act and arising from a challenge to defendant's patents involving cancer research, judgment of the district court is: 1) affirmed where it properly granted plaintiffs standing because at least one plaintiff has standing, and held that defendant's method claims directed to comparing or analyzing DNA sequences are patent-ineligible; but 2) reversed where it erred in concluding that defendant's composition claims to isolated DNA molecules cover patent-ineligible products of nature, 35 U.S.C. section 101, and that defendant's method claim to screening potential cancer therapeutics via changes in cell growth rates is directed to a patent-ineligible principle in science.

[07/28] Priestley v. Headminder, Inc.
In an action for breach of contract and fiduciary duties of loyalty and care, and arising from a a joint venture agreement to produce and sell a new line of biotech products, summary judgment against the defendant is reversed where plaintiff did not move for judgment against it.

More...

[01/25] US v. Juvenile Male
In consolidated appeals in which three juvenile defendants who pleaded true to a charge of aggravated sexual abuse with children challenged their conditions of probation or supervision requiring registration under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), the district courts' imposition of the sex offender registration conditions is affirmed, where: 1) the appeals were not moot; 2) the district courts properly applied SORNA's registration requirements to the juvenile defendants; and 3) subjecting juvenile sex offenders to SORNA registration does not violate the equal protection clause, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, the right against self-incrimination, substantive due process, procedural due process, or the right to effective counsel.

[01/20] US v. Juvenile Male
In a prosecution in federal court under the Major Crimes Act, 18 USC section 1153, in which the defendant disputed the element of being Indian, conviction is affirmed where a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant to be an Indian beyond a reasonable doubt, given that: 1) the defendant did not dispute that he had sufficient Indian blood; and 2) there was sufficient evidence of tribal or federal government recognition as an Indian.

[01/09] The Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming v. US
In a consolidated suit by Indian tribes including a claim that the government unlawfully converted oil and gas leases on a reservation from one type to another, dismissal of that claim on statute of limitations grounds is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) the tribes alleged a continuing trespass, so that they could seek damages for trespasses that occurred within six years of the filing of their suit and all trespasses that occurred after filing; and 2) remand was necessary so that the Court of Federal Claims could determine whether the government had a duty to remove trespassers from the leased parcels.

[11/29] Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court granting defendant's motion to quash plaintiff's service of summons in an action for breach of contract, judgment is reversed where a fourth amendment to subject loan agreement did not vitiate the court's jurisdiction.

[10/20] Oneida Indian Nation v. Madison County
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in an action to enjoin defendant from assessing property tax on property acquired on the open market and from enforcing those taxes through a tax sale or foreclosure, judgment is affirmed where plaintiff's tribal sovereign immunity from suit barred the defendant from undertaking foreclosure proceedings against it.

[10/13] US v. LaBuff
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court convicting defendant of robbery and aiding and abetting robbery in Indian country, 18 U.S.C. sections 1153(a) and 2111, conviction and sentencing are upheld where a reasonable trier of fact could have found that defendant is an Indian and thus the assertion of federal criminal jurisdiction was proper under Major Crimes Act.

More...