Case Summaries

Consumer Protection

[06/24] Olmstead v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
An order to partially satisfy a judgment against defendant in the FTC's suit for unfair or deceptive trade practices is affirmed as Florida law permits a court to order a judgment debtor to surrender all right, title, and interest in the debtor's single-member limited liability company to satisfy an outstanding judgment.

[06/21] Edwards v. First Am. Corp.
In an action claiming that defendant improperly paid millions of dollars to individual title companies and, in exchange, those title companies entered into exclusive referral agreements with defendant, a denial of defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is affirmed where the text of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act did not limit liability to instances in which a plaintiff was overcharged.

[06/21] Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp.
In plaintiff's class action suit under section 17529.5(a)(2), which makes it unlawful to advertise in a commercial e-mail advertisement (i.e. spam) that "contains or is accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information," dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim is affirmed as sending commercial e-mail advertisements from multiple domain names for the purpose of bypassing spam filters is not unlawful under section 17529.5(a)(2).

[06/21] Real Estate Bar Ass'n for Massachusetts, Inc. v. Nat'l Real Estate Info. Serv.
In the Real Estate Bar Association's suit against defendant for unauthorized practice of law, judgment of the district court is vacated in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment against plaintiff on its unauthorized practice of law claim is vacated as in Massachusetts, the state judicial branch and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (SJC) in particular, is solely responsible for defining what is the practice of law, and here, there is no controlling precedent which addresses whether the activities at issue constitute unauthorized practice of law; and 2) district court's judgment on defendant's dormant Commerce Clause counterclaim is reversed as plaintiff is not a state actor, defendant has not stated a dormant Commerce Clause claim against plaintiff, and plaintiff's bringing of its suit against defendant under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 221, section 46B is protected by the First Amendment.

[06/17] Ehrheart v. Verizon Wireless
In a class action against Verizon Wireless claiming that defendant violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, which prohibits a seller from printing a receipt that displays more than the last five digits of a buyer's credit or debit card and/or the expiration date of the credit or debit card, a district court's order vacating its settlement class certification order and granting defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is reversed where: 1) there was a restricted, tightly focused role that Rule 23 prescribes for district courts, requiring them to act as fiduciaries for the absent class members, but that did not vest them with broad powers to intrude upon the parties' bargain; 2) a strong public policy existed, which was particularly muscular in class action suits, favoring settlement of disputes, finality of judgments and the termination of litigation; and 3) changes in the law after a settlement was reached did not provide ground for rescission of the settlement.

[06/02] Rule v. Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc.
In plaintiff's putative class action suit against Weyth Corporation and its subsidiary, alleging that defendants had sold a heartworm medication for dogs without disclosing safety concerns revealed in initial testing and in subsequent use, a grant of defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to sate a claim is affirmed where: 1) recovery generally is not available under the warranty of merchantability where the defect that made the product unfit caused no injury to the claimant and the threat is now gone and nothing now possessed by the claimant has been lessened in value; and 2) plaintiff has suffered no economic injuries under 93A section 4.

[05/28] Shaw v. Marriott Int'l., Inc.
In an action under the District of Columbia consumer protection statute to challenge the pricing practices of Marriott's Russian hotels, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where the District of Columbia had an insufficient interest in the dispute for its law to apply. However, the judgment is reversed in part where plaintiffs proffered evidence that Marriott was responsible for their loss because it exercised some control over the franchised hotels at issue, including capping the rates they charge for rooms.

[05/27] CE Design, Ltd. v. Prism Bus. Media, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), against the defendant for sending a fax advertising a trade show to the plaintiff, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the validity of the "established business relationship" (EBR) defense; and 2) district court correctly determined that the EBR exemption applies in this case as the parties' publisher-subscriber relationships falls within the scope of business relationships the FCC intended the EBR defense to cover.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[06/25] Crescent Towing & Salvage Co. v. Chios Beauty MV
In an action for damages sustained when defendant's ship collided with plaintiffs' barges and tugboats during Hurricane Katrina, partial judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where the district court did not clearly err in its finding of a predicted "direct hit" on New Orleans by the hurricane, its factual findings based on this finding, and the ultimate finding of negligence to the extent that it relied upon this finding. However, the matter is remanded where the district court needed to enter an order setting the total amount of recovery plaintiffs could recover in rem.

[06/25] Bagby Elevator Co. v. Schindler Elevator Corp.
In an action for tortious interference with contract, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) under the court's highly deferential standard of review, there was no reversible error in the district court's decision to use the pattern jury instruction; 2) there was sufficient evidence of both malice and gross negligence to support an award of exemplary damages; and 3) there was ample evidence of causation to support the verdict.

[06/25] Lal v. State of Cal.
In an action against the California Highway Patrol and certain officers for the shooting death of plaintiff's husband, dismissal of the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute when her attorney failed to meet deadlines and attend hearings is reversed where an attorney's gross negligence constituted an extraordinary circumstance warranting relief from a judgment dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).

[06/24] DDJ Mgmt., LLC v. Rhone Group L.L.C.
In an action claiming that defendants presented plaintiffs with corporate financial statements that were false and misleading, the appellate division's modification of the trial court's order dismissing plaintiffs' fraud claim is reversed where: 1) when a plaintiff has taken reasonable steps to protect itself against deception, it should not be denied recovery merely because hindsight suggested that it might have been possible to detect the fraud when it occurred; and 2) plaintiffs in this action for fraud have alleged facts from which a jury could find that they were justified in relying on the representations defendants made to them.

[06/24] Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l. Brotherhood of Teamsters
In an action against a labor union by an employer, invoking federal jurisdiction under section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), seeking strike-related damages for the unions' alleged breach of contract, and asking for an injunction against an ongoing strike because the hold-harmless dispute was an arbitrable grievance under the new collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the Ninth Circuit's partial affirmance of the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's tortious interference claims and denying defendant's separate motion to send the parties' dispute over the CBA's ratification date to arbitration is affirmed in part where the Ninth Circuit did not err in declining to recognize a new federal common-law cause of action under LMRA section 301(a) for defendant's alleged tortious interference with the CBA. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the parties' dispute over the CBA's ratification date was a matter for the district court, not an arbitrator, to resolve.

[06/24] Yanez v. SOMA Envtl. Eng'g, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit for injuries she suffered in an automobile accident, trial court's grant of defendants' motion to reduce the award for medical expenses from $44,519.01 to $18,368.24 is reversed and remanded where: 1) trial court erred in reducing plaintiff's damages to the amount actually paid by her insurers as the amounts written off by plaintiff's health care providers constitute collateral benefits of her insurance; and 2) on remand, the trial court is to award plaintiff prejudgment interest under Civ. Code section 3291.

[06/23] Espinosa v. Kirkwood
In plaintiffs' suit against the driver of their getaway vehicle (they were participants in a burglary) for damages for personal injuries sustained in a vehicle collision while fleeing from the police, judgment of the trial court is affirmed as, because their injuries were "in any way proximately caused by their commission of a felony or immediate flight therefrom," plaintiffs were barred from recovering damages based on negligence.

[06/18] Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Merrell
In plaintiffs' wrongful death and survival claims against Wal-Mart for the death of their son from smoke inhalation, claiming that a halogen lamp purchased from Wal-Mart caused the fire, the court of appeals' reversal of the trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs produced evidence on each challenged element of their cause of action is reversed as, plaintiff's expert's testimony was legally insufficient to support causation.

More...