Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[09/05] Sindecuse v. Katsaros
In a case alleging common law fraud surrounding a stock purchase, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the allegedly fraudulent statements could not support claims of fraud because they were: 1) predictions of the future; and 2) a promise of future action not accompanied by a present intent not to perform.

[09/05] Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg
In a lawsuit by a corporation against its officers and attorneys, order granting defendant's application to file a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, motion is reversed, vacated, and remanded with directions to deny defendant's application to file an anti-SLAPP motion where: 1) defendant failed to provide a compelling explanation for why he did not file an anti-SLAPP motion earlier in the case; 2) defendant did not articulate any extenuating circumstances justifying a late filing; and 3) under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant's application to file the anti-SLAPP motion.

More...

Consumer Protection

[09/04] Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Lockyer
After remand, in a case interpreting California's Financial Information Privacy Act (FIPA) in light of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a ruling that the FRCA entirely preempted FIPA section 4053(b)(1), which restricts the sharing of nonpublic consumer personal information between financial institutions and their affiliates, is reversed and remanded where the preempted portions of FIPA are severable, narrowing FIPA section 4053(b)(1) to exclude consumer report information as defined by the FCRA.

[09/04] Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz v. US
In a case challenging application of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) attorneys providing bankruptcy assistance are "debt relief agencies" under the BAPCPA, 11 U.S.C. section 526(a)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to these attorneys; but 2) sections 528(a)(4) and (b)(2) are constitutional.

More...

Health Law

[09/05] Woodruff v. Mason
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit alleging that state social-services employees had retaliated against plaintiff-healthcare provider by instigating the launch of a predatory enforcement campaign aimed at driving plaintiff out of business, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal link between its protected First Amendment activity and the alleged retaliation by defendants; and 2) plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to substantiate any of its three equal-protection claims.

[09/05] Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia v. Gunter
In a claim by plaintiff-Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia seeking reimbursement of insurance benefits paid to defendant from his settlement with a third party, dismissal by district court is affirmed where: 1) Blue Cross failed to establish that this case is not governed by the general rule in Empire Health Choice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh; and 2)the court lacks federal question jurisdiction to hear the case.

More...

Consumer Products

[08/29] Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cellular One Group
In a suit for a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs-insurers did not owe a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer in suits claiming biological injury caused by radiation emitted by its phones, the court relied on its simultaneously-released opinion in Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nokia, No. 06-1030 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008), to hold that plaintiff-insurer had a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer.

[08/29] Fed. Ins. Co. v. Samsung Elec. Am.
In a suit for a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs-insurers did not owe a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer in suits claiming biological injury caused by radiation emitted by its phones, the court relied on its simultaneously-released opinion in Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nokia, No. 06-1030 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008), to hold that plaintiff-insurer had a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer.

More...

Class Actions

[09/04] Hoffman v. Construction Protective Servs.
In an employment class action suit, exclusion of evidence regarding damages is affirmed where: 1) numerous plaintiffs made state law claims separate from the Fair Labor Standards Act class action; and 2) plaintiffs failed to disclose damages calculations per individual plaintiff.

[09/03] Pelt v. State of Utah
In a class action seeking a fiduciary accounting of the activities of an oil and gas royalty fund administered by defendant for the benefit of members of the Navajo Nation, partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) an intervening Supreme Court decision rejected the argument that nonparties to an earlier litigation could be precluded from relitigating an issue on a theory of "virtual representation"; 2) plaintiffs in three prior suits over the royalty fund had not adequately represented the interests of the current plaintiffs such that preclusion applied; and 3) relitigation was not precluded under a theory that fund beneficiaries had a pre-existing substantive legal relationship that allowed one to bind the others.

More...