News Headlines

Case Summaries

Class Actions

[05/15] In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litigation
In an antitrust action involving the scrap metal market in Northeastern Ohio, judgment and damages award for plaintiffs are affirmed where: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in allowing expert testimony based on allegedly erroneous data; 2) the fact that the jury awarded damages are below the figure mentioned by an expert witness did not mean that there was insufficient evidence since the jury was entitled to award damages based on expert testimony it found credible; 3) there was no "impermissible fluid recovery" since plaintiffs provided evidence of a class-wide aggregate injury; 4) there was no abuse of discretion in the certification of a class ; and 5) any error in instructions to the jury regarding fraudulent concealment was harmless since the jury heard evidence of fraudulent concealment dating before the earliest date of consideration set by the court.

[05/13] Bufil v. Dollar Fin. Group, Inc.
In a purported class action against an employer alleging violation of meal and rest break labor laws, a judgment entered in favor of employer along with a denial of plaintiff's motion for class certification are reversed where the trial court erred in: 1) concluding that issue preclusion principles should bar plaintiff's request for class certification under applicable precedents; and 2) finding that individual issues predominated over common issues, class members were unascertainable, and a class action was not the superior method for resolving the litigation.

[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.

[05/02] Savedoff v. Access Group, Inc.
In a class action raising breach of contract claims, partial summary judgment for plaintiff on the issue of liability on such claims is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) the language of the contract did not limit defendant's collection of additional interest to a borrower's final monthly payment at the end of the loan term; 2) the language of the contract did not prohibit defendant from collecting additional interest from borrower's regular monthly payments; and 3) the contract was silent as to the application of borrower's monthly payments to the additional interest before applying them to reduce the principal balance.

[04/29] Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
In a class action lawsuit against an insurance corporation challenging the sale of its fixed deferred annuities, an order, which effectively prevents defendant from proceeding with any settlement negotiations on similar class action claims raised in any other courts without permission from plaintiff's lead counsel, is reversed where: 1) in the context of the All Writs Act, there was no proper support for the district court's enjoining of proceedings in other courts; and 2) even if there were, the Anti-Injunction Act barred such injunction.

[04/25] Kirschbaum vs. Reliant Energy, Inc.
Certification of a class and grant of corporate defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims related to plaintiff-employee's ERISA class action is affirmed where: 1) even if defendants had a fiduciary duty to liquidate a particular investment option in the plan (defendant-company's stock fund) and cease purchasing its shares, notwithstanding the plan's express contrary requirements; nevertheless, 2) plaintiff fell short of bearing his heavy burden to rebut the presumption that defendants satisfied their legal duties.

[04/22] Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc.
An order awarding plaintiff in a putative class action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) over $77,000 in merits fees, costs, and fees-on-fees, based in part on the district court's multiplying the number of hours worked by each of her three attorneys by an hourly rate of $200, is vacated and remanded where the district court erred: 1) by not identifying the relevant community and by not explaining what was the prevailing hourly rate in that community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation; and 2) by awarding a "flat award" of $500 for fees-on-fees.

[04/22] Benzman v. Whitman
An order denying in part and granting in part defendants' motions to dismiss claims for damages against former EPA administrator, and for other relief against EPA for alleged constitutional and statutory violations in the aftermath of the 9/11 disaster, is reversed in part where the district court improperly denied defendants' motion to dismiss: 1) claims of Fifth Amendment substantive due process violations to be free from government-created health risk; and 2) constitutional claims under the Administrative Procedure Act.

More...

Consumer Protection

[05/14] Saunders v. Branch Banking and Trust Co. of Virginia
In an action alleging violation of defendant-lender's duties as a furnisher of information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), judgment against defendant including a denial of defendant's motions for judgment as a mater of law and for remittitur is affirmed where: 1) a decision by defendant to report a debt to credit reporting agencies without mention of a dispute was in violation of section 1681s-2 of the FCRA; 2) plaintiff was able to demonstrate that defendant knowingly and intentionally withheld information of a valid dispute from credit reporting agencies; 3) there were sufficient facts for a jury to find that plaintiff had an excuse for failing to make payments; and 4) an $80,000 punitive award was not grossly excessive in light of defendant's reprehensible conduct and the fact that a lower award would not have a punitive or deterrent effect.

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

[04/30] Clark v. Time Warner Cable
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction permits a district court to refer a claim raising a novel and technical question of federal telecommunications policy to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for its consideration in the first instance.

[04/30] Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
In a case applying the accrual and statute of limitations provisions of the Massachusetts U.C.C. to breach of warranty claims brought against an engine manufacturer, dismissal of plaintiff's warranty and Massachusetts Gen. Laws chapter 93A claims as time-barred, as well as summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's negligence claims, are affirmed where: 1) the breach of warranty claim, accruing on the date of delivery of goods, was filed after the expiration of the limitations period, and plaintiff's equitable estoppel arguments were unavailing; and 2) plaintiff made no compelling argument and cited no specific facts which would invalidate the exculpatory language contained in a negligence exclusion clause.

[04/25] Ross v. Bank of America, N.A.
In an appeal involving whether mandatory arbitration clauses found in credit card contracts issued by defendants, assuming they were products of illegal collusion among credit providers, give rise to Article III standing, dismissal of plaintiffs-cardholders' antitrust suit is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court erroneously held that plaintiff-cardholders failed to allege an "injury in fact" sufficient to confer Article III standing; and 2) plaintiffs' claims were ripe for adjudication.

[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.

[04/22] Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc.
An order awarding plaintiff in a putative class action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) over $77,000 in merits fees, costs, and fees-on-fees, based in part on the district court's multiplying the number of hours worked by each of her three attorneys by an hourly rate of $200, is vacated and remanded where the district court erred: 1) by not identifying the relevant community and by not explaining what was the prevailing hourly rate in that community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation; and 2) by awarding a "flat award" of $500 for fees-on-fees.

[04/21] SC Manufactured Homes, Inc. v. Liebert
In an appeal involving allegations that a mobilehome park and a number of mobilehome dealers were involved in an illegal arrangement whereby prospective park tenants were forced to buy a mobilehome from one of the dealers in order to secure a space in the park, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiff had not stated causes of action for violating the Cartwright Act, the Unfair Competition Law, or interference with prospective economic advantage.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[05/16] Brittingham v. GMC
In a negligence and intentional misconduct case, summary judgment for defendants and denial of a motion to remand the case to state court is vacated and remanded where: 1) there was no federal preemption under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) did not impose a duty on defendant to conduct pre-employment examinations and disclose information; and 2) the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the action since the plaintiff's claims were rooted in state law independent of the CBA.

[05/16] Reese v. Herbert
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action for damages wherein plaintiff alleged various claims of police misconduct in arresting him, order denying plaintiff's motion to leave to file a second amended complaint and disallowing an expert witness affidavit is affirmed, but summary judgment for defendant on basis of qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the additional utility extracted from reviewing defendants' records and consulting an expert did not justify plaintiff's delay in seeking leave to amend; 2) the expert affidavit was properly excluded, as plaintiff's failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26 was both unjustified and harmful to the defendants; but 3) the district court erred by failing to review the full record on summary judgment and misapplied the legal standards for summary judgment.

[05/14] Ericson v. Fed. Express Corp.
In a premises liability tort action arising from a third-party's assault and robbery incident in defendant's parking lot, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the third-party assault was not foreseeable under even the "regular reasonable forseeability" test; and 2) the negligent undertaking doctrine was inapplicable.

[05/14] Lockett v. Suardini
In a prisoner's action claiming a violation of his free speech rights when he was forcibly removed from a parole hearing after insulting the hearing officer, as well as cruel and unusual punishment based on guards' use of excessive force and nursing staff's refusal to treat his injuries, summary judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a prisoner is not engaged in protected conduct when he violates a legitimate prison regulation; 2) the prison guards used minimal force and plaintiff suffered minimal injuries when he was removed from the hearing room; and 3) plaintiff did not have an objectively serious medical need due to his minor injuries, and there was no deliberate indifference from the nursing staff since they checked up on the plaintiff twice after the incident.

[05/13] Union County, Iowa v. Piper Jaffray & Co., Inc.
In a diversity action wherein the district court certified an interlocutory appeal concerning a discovery order, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the district court abused its discretion in certifying the interlocutory appeal when the statutory requirements were not satisfied.

[05/13] Lash v. Hollis
In a civil rights action arising from injuries sustained during an arrest wherein jury awarded damages as well as attorney's fees, denial of a motion for a new damages-phase trial is affirmed, but the attorney's fees award is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the district court did not err in finding that plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to show that defendant's action in subduing him with a Taser induced or contributed to his rhabdomyolysis; 2) Missouri's sudden onset doctrine was inapplicable to underlying case, which involved multiple possible causes, rather than one alleged event preceding the harm; but 3) the record was unclear as to whether the district court considered the relationship between plaintiffs' successful and unsuccessful claims or overall degree of success obtained in determining the fee award.

[05/13] Roemmich v. Eagle Eye Dev., LLC
In an action brought by shareholder-plaintiff alleging various violations of his rights as a minority shareholder, partial summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty to a minority shareholder was time barred by North Dakota's statute of limitations; 2) the continuing wrong doctrine did not toll the limitations period; 3) there was no error in findings of fact concerning freeze-out of a minority shareholder, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair deprivation of reasonable expectations; and 4) in applying North Dakota state law, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees and expenses to defendant.

[05/13] Beazer E., Inc. v. Mead Corp.
In an on-going contribution claim against defendant under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), wherein the district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and certified the question of whether certain caselaw precedent limited subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's contribution claims under section 113(f)(1), the circuit court finds that: 1) the "civil action" requirement in section 113(f) is an element of the claim, and is not jurisdictional; 2) the district court retained its original jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues in this case; and 3) defendant waived its challenge to the applicability of section 113(f)(1).

More...