Latest Legal News Headlines

Case Summaries

Attorney's Fees

[03/05] Howard v. St. Germain
In an appeal from the district court's order assessing attorney's fees against defendants based on their improper removal of the case, the order is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in taxing costs and attorney's fees to defendants because an objectively reasonable basis for removal did not exist.

[03/04] Keup v. Hopkins
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action by a prisoner claiming defendant prison personnel prevented plaintiff from sending drawings outside the prison in violation of the First Amendment, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) defendants did not raise their mootness or exhaustion defenses at trial; and 2) because the district court directed a verdict for plaintiff, he was the prevailing party. However, the judgment is reversed in part where, when a prisoner plaintiff only receives nominal damages of $1.00, 42 U.S.C. section 1997e(d)(2) caps attorney fees at $1.50.

[02/25] Donahue v. Donahue
Trial court's order, charging a trust with some $5 million in past and ongoing attorney fees incurred on behalf of a former trustee in defending against the beneficiary's allegations of self-dealing and conflict of interest is reversed as it cannot be determined from the trial court's order whether the fee awards are consistent with applicable legal principles. Long-established principles of trust law impose a double-barreled reasonableness requirement where: 1) the fee award must be reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation; and 2) it also must be reasonable and appropriate for the benefit of the trust.

[02/25] Pellegrino v. Robert Half Int'l
In plaintiffs' action against their former employer, a temporary staffing firm, for hour and wage violations, trial court's award of plaintiffs' attorneys fees' is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the court did not err by reducing the lodestar amount by no more than 15 percent to reflect the parties' litigation of the unfair competition claims because the legal and factual issues presented in those claims were interrelated with those issues presented by plaintiffs' wage and hour claims; 2) the record supports the trial court's application of a 1.75 multiplier to the reduced lodestar amount for attorney fees generated up until plaintiffs brought their motion for attorney fees based on the factors set forth in Ketchum; and 3) the record does not support trial court's application of a 1.75 multiplier to fees incurred in bringing the motion for attorney fees.

[02/22] City of Waco v. Kelley
In an action by an assistant chief of police challenging his indefinite suspension for being arrested and charged with drunk-driving in another city, the judgment of the hearing examiner is reversed and remanded where: 1) although the hearing examiner did not exceed his jurisdiction by reducing the indefinite suspension, he exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering a 180-day suspension, as the Civil Service Act does not authorize a hearing examiner to impose a temporary suspension of more than 15 days; 2) the hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering back pay and benefits to the extent they were awarded for any time during which the assistant chief was suspended; 3) the hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction by demoting the chief assistant; and 4) the court of appeals erred in affirming assistant chief's award of attorneys' fees.

[02/18] US v. Thouvenot, Wade & Moerschen, Inc.
In a consolidated appeal, requiring interpretation of the Equal Access to Justice Act involving the issue of whether the government's position was substantially justified, district court's judgment is reversed in two cases and affirmed in the last case where: 1) in the case against a project site engineer, the government had a substantial though not winning case, and therefore plaintiff failed to establish its right to an award; 2) in the second case involving social security disability benefits, district court's denial of fees to the prevailing claimant is reversed as government's position was not substantially justified; and 3) district court's reversal of ALJ's denial of plaintiff's disability benefits but denial of his fees is affirmed as the district judge was persuaded that the agency's position had been substantially justified.

[02/18] Rodriguez v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C.
In an appeal from the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees after an infant compromise hearing, the award is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in looking beyond the retainer agreement between plaintiffs and their attorneys to the actual work performed by the various attorneys; and 2) the district court did not err in determining that appellant-attorneys did not obtain informed consent from the client for the fee-sharing agreement.

More...

Evidence

[03/09] US v. Cha
In a prosecution for conspiracy, sex trafficking and coercion, and enticement to travel for the purpose of prostitution, a grant of defendants' motion to suppress evidence is affirmed where the warrantless seizure of defendants' residence, which lasted a minimum of 26.5 hours, was constitutionally unreasonable.

[03/09] Thu v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's order dismissing his appeal from a denial of petitioner's asylum application and related relief, the petition is denied where: 1) the Immigration Judge's credibility finding was supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief; and 2) the evidence in the record was not so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.

[03/09] US v. Stearn
Following a grand jury indictment of defendants for federal narcotics and weapons offenses, district court's order granting in part motions to suppress evidence in favor of defendants is, with one irrelevant exception, reversed in its entirety where: 1) the magistrate judge had a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed to search the apparent residence of a confirmed drug dealer; 2) although closer probable cause questions are presented by the searches of other residences, each search is upheld under the Leon good faith exception as each warrant was sufficiently colored in probable cause to justify the executing officers' good faith reliance; and 3) the suppression of a defendant's saliva sample as "fruit of poisonous tree" is reversed as the defendant failed to prove a primary invasion of his own Fourth Amendment rights.

[03/09] US v. Salem
In a prosecution of defendants for wire fraud and receiving stolen funds, district court's sentences based on relevant conduct findings are remanded as the district court made findings as to the reasonableness of the co-schemers' acts only, but it made no finding as to the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity under U.S.S.G. section 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).

[03/09] In re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Secs. Litig.
In a securities class action alleging that defendants fraudulently accounted for a transaction, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to prove loss causation because their expert's testimony did not suffice to draw the requisite causal connection between the information in the article at issue and the fraud alleged in the complaint; and 2) the generalized investor reaction of concern causing a temporary share price decline was far too tenuously connected -- indeed, by a metaphoric thread -- to the transaction to support liability.

[03/05] Smith v. Mahoney
In a capital habeas matter, the denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) although defense counsel inadequately investigated the facts of the case before allowing petitioner to plead guilty, petitioner did not establish that he was prejudiced by his lawyer's representation; 2) non-character, non-circumstance evidence need not factor into the constitutionality of a death sentence; and 3) petitioner failed to develop his claim of judicial bias sufficiently to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

[03/05] People v. Memory
Conviction of defendants for murder arising from a fight in a parking lot outside a bar between two groups of men, the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the Jus Brothers Motorcycle Club as a gang, as there was no foundation that the Jus Brothers were a gang or a criminal enterprise, the evidence was not probative but was used as inadmissible character evidence.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[03/09] Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.

[03/09] Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming excessive force by defendants-officers, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to show as a matter of law that plaintiff's decedent did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; 2) the district court properly found that defendants failed to show as a matter of law that the emergency and exigency exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applied; 3) defendants failed to show that there were no questions of fact regarding whether a security guard had apparent authority to consent and implied consent; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the officers intentionally or recklessly provoked a confrontation.

[03/09] McGuan v. Endovascular Techs., Inc.
In plaintiffs' products liability action against the makers of a device for use by surgeons to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms, for injuries suffered after they were implanted with the device, grant of defendants' motion for a summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' fraud claims of FDA violations are preempted under Buckman; 2) the trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motions to amend their complaints; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants' motion to seal documents.

[03/09] Seltzer v. Barnes
Trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, arising from an underlying suit involving claims against a property management company and homeowners' association, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding plaintiff's two causes of action against defendant do not arise from speech or petitioning activity where his alleged conduct was the negotiation of a settlement in the prior case; and 2) because defendant may not be held liable for the alleged conduct under the litigation privilege, plaintiff has failed to show a probability of prevailing on her causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

[03/05] Bustos v. Martini Club Inc.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on a late-night confrontation with several off-duty police officers, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the election of remedies provisions in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 101.106 applied to state law intentional tort claims against a governmental unit and its employees; 2) plaintiff did not allege facts to suggest that the officers who assaulted him misused or abused their official power; and 3) bystander officers had no constitutional duty to prevent the alleged assault.

[03/05] Howard v. St. Germain
In an appeal from the district court's order assessing attorney's fees against defendants based on their improper removal of the case, the order is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in taxing costs and attorney's fees to defendants because an objectively reasonable basis for removal did not exist.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

More...

Insurance Law

[03/09] George's Inc. v. Allianz Global Risks US Ins. Co.
In an action against an insurer claiming that defendant failed to indemnify plaintiff for business expenses and personal property losses as required under the terms of its insurance policy, partial summary judgment for defendant on the personal property claim is affirmed, but a partial denial of summary judgment on the business expenses claim is reversed where the policy unambiguously excludes coverage for plaintiff's claimed losses.

[03/09] HealthEast Bethesda Hosp. v. United Commercial Travelers of Am.
In an action for breach of an insurance settlement contract, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) defendant was not an unsophisticated party because it had significant experience in handling and negotiating claims with healthcare providers; 2) because defendant bore the risk of mistake, the district court properly denied rescission based on unilateral mistake; and 3) the record of inaction by defendant strongly supported the denial of relief under both unilateral and mutual mistake.

[03/09] Seltzer v. Barnes
Trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, arising from an underlying suit involving claims against a property management company and homeowners' association, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding plaintiff's two causes of action against defendant do not arise from speech or petitioning activity where his alleged conduct was the negotiation of a settlement in the prior case; and 2) because defendant may not be held liable for the alleged conduct under the litigation privilege, plaintiff has failed to show a probability of prevailing on her causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

[03/03] City of Laguna Beach v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n
In a city's action against an insurance company seeking reimbursement for incurring workers' compensation liability that exceeded its self-insured retention, grant of insurance company's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the addition of subdivision (c)(13) to Ins. Code section 1063.1 did not abrogate Denny's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 104 Cal.App.4th 1433 (2003); 2) the trial court properly invoked the Denny's rule when it granted summary judgment and concluded that the city cannot obtain reimbursement from defendant under section 1063.1(c)(13) as, although this provision renders the obligation of an insolvent excess workers' compensation insurer a "covered claim" that defendant must ordinarily reimburse, defendant need not reimburse a permissibly self-insured employer for benefits paid to an employee for cumulative injury if the employer's liability is based in part on a period of time when the employer was self-insured and chose not to buy excess insurance for the particular risk.

[03/03] Fed. Ins. Co. v. Commerce Ins. Co.
In plaintiff-insurance company's subrogation claim, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in concluding that the implied coinsured doctrine controlled the outcome in this case and precluded the plaintiff from pursuing a subrogation claim is affirmed as plaintiff has not met its burden of proving that the "Responsibility for Damages" provision of a Residence and Care Agreement (RCA) overcomes the presumption that the landlord's insurance is held for the mutual benefit of both parties.

[02/22] Interstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cleveland Wrecking Co.
In plaintiff's claim for subrogation against defendant, alleging that defendant had breached its contract with a general contractor by failing to defend and indemnify the general contractor in an underlying suit, trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant pursuant to a demurrer is reversed as the allegations of plaintiff's amended complaint establish each of the elements for subrogation.

[02/19] Versai Mgmt. Corp. v. Clarendon Am. Ins. Co.
In an action against an insurer brought after a number of apartment buildings managed by plaintiff sustained damage during Hurricane Katrina, raising contract claims for unpaid insurance proceeds and claims that defendants violated Louisiana law by failing to promptly settle claims and by misrepresenting the terms of their policies, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where, under the policy, plaintiff was not entitled to costs of compliance until after it had incurred the expenses of code compliance. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) the district court was not at liberty to grant summary judgment based on plaintiff's "failure" to support its proofs of loss with additional documentation where the insurance policy created no such obligation; and 2) there was an issue of material fact suggesting that plaintiff was entitled to compensation for business-interruption losses.

More...