News & Resources

Case Summaries

[08/26] Brady v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc.
In a suit brought against one company and another which plaintiff contended was its alter ego for payment on certain bonds issued by defendant, dismissal of the claims is reversed where: 1) plaintiff acquired a right to sue on the Stated Maturity of his bond and that remedy was not time barred; and 2) furthermore, plaintiff's claims are not barred by res judicata.

[08/26] Grynberg v. Total S.A.
In two suits against oil companies raising tort claims for breach of fiduciary duty and equitable claims for unjust enrichment involving potential oil and gas reserves in Kazakhstan, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and laches.

[08/26] Mamot Feed Lot & Trucking v. Hobson
In a class action raising federal usury and antitying claims against a bank, its holding company, and various shareholders, officers, and employees of the bank, following the criminal indictment of the bank's president for defrauding the bank of nearly one million dollars, dismissal of the claim is affirmed where: 1) as sections 85 and 86 do not apply to state-chartered banks, the district court properly dismissed those claims brought under the National Bank Act for want of jurisdiction; 2) the district court properly dismissed a claim under 12 U.S.C. section 1831d for failure to state a claim; and 3) the complaint provided absolutely no facts to support an illegal tying claim.

[08/26] Ley v. Visteon Corp.
In a class action securities violation case, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to allege a misrepresentation or omission of material fact regarding claims arising from a spin-off; 2) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter regarding claims arising from a Restatement filed with the SEC; 3) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter on the part of defendant-CPA firm, and thus dismissal of a section 10(b) claim was appropriate; and 4) dismissal of plaintiffs' section 20(a) claim was proper as there was no predicate violation of the securities laws.

[08/25] W. Filter Corp. v. Argan, Inc.
In a contract and tort action arising from the parties' execution of a Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA), summary judgment for defendant on limitations grounds is reversed where a provision within the SPA permitting the representations and warranties of the parties to survive closing did not unambiguously state the parties' intent to contractually reduce the applicable California statute of limitation to one year.

[08/25] Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, Inc.
In a tort suit asserting numerous state-law claims, dismissal for lack of federal diversity jurisdiction is affirmed where a federal district court lacks diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving a partnership where one of its partners is a dual American-British citizen domiciled in a foreign state.

[08/22] Gong v. RFG Oil, Inc.
Denial of motion to disqualify counsel for defendants is reversed and remanded where: 1) an actual conflict of interest existed between defendants; and thus, 2) counsel must be disqualified from representing one defendant; but 3) counsel could still represent co-defendant.

[08/21] Ritter & Ritter, Inc. v. Churchill Condominium Ass'n
In an action against defendant-condominium housing association for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, judgment in favor of plaintiff-homeowners is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the general verdict and special findings were inconsistent and irreconcilable and the special findings controlled; 2) the CC&R's alone determine the rights and obligations between the parties; 3) the trial court erred in applying the rules set forth in Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn., 21 Cal.4th 249 (1999); 4) the trial court erred in instructions submitted to jury; 5) it erred in ordering the injunction; and 6) it erred in determining the plaintiffs were the prevailing parties.

More...

[08/28] Montes v. Greater Twin Cities Youth Symphonies
In race-and national-origin-based employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant non-profit music organization for youth is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff-former employee failed to establish that defendant's legitimate reasons for firing him were pretextual; 2 )plaintiff failed to satisfy his "ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that he has been the victim of intentional discrimination"; and 3) the evidence taken as a whole is "insufficient to permit a reasonable jury, without resort to speculation, to draw [an] inference" that the board terminated plaintiff's employment because of his race or national origin.

[08/28] Morales v. Sun Constructors, Inc.
In a wrongful-termination suit, denial of defendant-employer's motion to stay is reversed and remanded for entry of a stay pending arbitration where plaintiff-employee's inability to read in English the employment agreement he signed, which bound him to arbitration of his complaints, did not release him from being bound by it.

[08/28] In Re: Lucent Death Benefits ERISA Litig.
In a putative class-action suit relating to the termination of a pensioner death benefit, dismissal for failure to state a claim is affirmed where the death benefit was an unvested welfare benefit that the employer could terminate without violating ERISA or unilateral contract principles.

[08/27] Local Joint Exec. Bd. of Las Vegas v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
Petition for review of an NLRB order dismissing union's complaints against hotel employers for unilaterally terminating dues-checkoff before bargaining to agreement or impasse is granted where: 1) although the NLRB was responsive to a prior mandate from the circuit court that it adopt a new rule, it did not properly apply the new rule it adopted; and 2) contrary to the NLRB's ruling, the union did not clearly and unmistakably waive any right of employees to claim dues-checkoff after the agreements expired.

[08/27] Kozisek v. Couty of Seward
In an employment discrimination and civil rights case, summary judgment for defendants-county and county board chairman is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case under the Americans with Disability Act; 2) for purposes of a First Amendment claim, plaintiff's speech was not protected, and regardless, he failed to show a connection between his speech and his termination; and 3) a due process claim failed.

[08/26] Wisconsin Cent., Ltd. v. Shannon
In a suit by a railroad seeking a declaratory judgment that state overtime provisions were preempted by federal law, summary judgment for plaintiff and determination that federal law preempted the state statute are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claim that the state labor agency's investigation and enforcement of state overtime law was preempted by the federal Railway Labor Act was not ripe for consideration; and 2) field preemption applied in light of the comprehensive federal regulation of the railways.

[08/26] Argyropoulos v. City of Alton
In a suit alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 violations for city's termination of plaintiff-city employee, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's illegal eavesdropping on her supervisors was not a protected activity for purposes of her retaliation claim; 2) plaintiff produced no other evidence that she engaged in a protected activity and was terminated as a result; 3) plaintiff produced no evidence under the indirect method of proof that she was performing her job in a satisfactory manner, or that she was treated differently from similarly-situated employees; 4) plaintiff could not rebut defendant's proffered, non-discriminatory reason for terminating her; and 5) plaintiff waived her other arguments on appeal.

[08/26] Carpenter v. Mohawk Industries, Inc.
In an employment matter, appeal of judgment for plaintiff-former employee is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and petition for writ of mandamus is denied where: 1) court declines to extend the "collateral order" doctrine established in past precedent to exercise court's jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of a discovery order implicating the attorney-client privilege; 2) mandamus is appropriate only when there has been a clear usurpation of power or abuse of discretion; and 3) defendant-employer has not shown its right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable.

More...