Latest Legal News Headlines

Case Summaries

Attorney's Fees

[01/06] In Re: Smart World Techs., LLC
In the bankruptcy context, pre-approval of a fee agreement under 11 U.S.C. section 328(a) depends on the totality of the circumstances, including whether the professional's application, or the court's order, referenced section 328(a), and whether the court evaluated the propriety of the fee arrangement before granting final, and not merely preliminary, approval. In the circumstances of this case, the circuit court rules that: 1) the bankruptcy court's Retention Order was a pre-approval within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. section 328(a); and 2) no subsequent developments warranted modifying the terms of appellee-firm's retention.

[01/05] Chen v. Chen Qualified Settlement Fund
In a case arising from a medical malpractice action which had been settled, denial of attorney's application for attorneys' fees is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the application based on a finding that attorney engaged in misconduct with respect to the fees and expenses in the case and that he failed to represent his client adequately with respect to the post-settlement proceedings in the district court; and 2) the record did not support his claim of bias.

[12/31] In the Matter of: Owens
Bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing debtor's bad-faith Chapter 11 case rather than converting it to Chapter 7. When deciding between dismissal and conversion under 11 U.S.C. section 1112(b), the court must consider the interests of all the creditors; here, the other creditors would fare worse under Chapter 7 because the accompanying discharge would deny them access to debtor's future income.

[12/30] Chinese Yellow Pages Co. v. Chinese Overseas Mktg. Svc. Corp.
Denial of request for postjudgment fees and costs incurred in a bankruptcy proceeding brought by defendant and judgment debtor is reversed where: 1) Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040 can extend to reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and costs incurred in postjudgment bankruptcy proceedings under the circumstances of the present case; and 2) because the trial court ruled it had no jurisdiction to award reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and costs, the case is reversed.

[12/30] Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortgage Corp.
District court properly approved settlement of class action involving claims brought by customers against mortgage company who sold their personal information to telemarketers, even though the settlement provided no payment to members of a sub-class consisting of customers who did not purchase anything from telemarketers to whom customers' information was sold. The state law claims of that sub-class were worthless, any claims they belatedly asserted under the Fair Credit Reporting Act were frivolous, and attorneys for objectors were not entitled to additional attorneys' fees because they provided little or no benefit to the sub-class.

[12/24] McCown v. City of Fontana
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit including claims of wrongful detention, false arrest, and use of excessive force in connection with plaintiff's arrest, a grant to plaintiff of over $200,000 in attorney's fees and costs as prevailing party is reversed and remanded where the district court erred, both in failing to adequately explain its reasons for the award it granted to plaintiff, and in granting excessive attorney's fees and costs in light of his limited success.

[12/24] Grain v. Trinity Health, Mercy Health Servs. Inc.
In a suit brought by husband and wife medical doctors against former employer-hospital and related defendants for taking a variety of "punitive actions" that allegedly interfered with their medical practices, partial denial of plaintiffs' motion to confirm in part and modify in part a $1.6 million arbitration award is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs forfeited a claim that the award had to be modified due to "an evident material miscalculation of figures" by failing to raise the argument below; 2) an arbitrator's reasoned merits ruling regarding the appropriate amount of an attorneys' fees award is not viewed as a "matter of form" for purposes of 9 U.S.C. section 11(c); 3) prior circuit precedent still prohibits modifying (as opposed to vacating) an arbitration award based on an alleged "manifest disregard" of law.

More...

Evidence

[01/06] US v. Molsbarger
Conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute is affirmed where: 1) a search of the hotel room defendant was occupying was justified since whatever expectation of privacy defendant had in the room ceased when he was justifiably evicted from the hotel; and 2) the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the defendant guilty.

[01/05] People v. Doolin
Attorney conflict claims under the California constitution are to be analyzed under the same standard as that articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mickens v. Taylor, (2002) 535 U.S. 162. In an automatic appeal in a death penalty case, the conviction and sentence are affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) alleged conflict of interest based on counsel's compensation agreement; 2) a denial of a request for second counsel; 3) improper admission of evidence of defendant's character; 4) the testimony of defendant's mother; 5) prosecutorial misconduct; 6) admissibility of DNA evidence; 7) a denial of a request for continuance; 8) a Faretta motion; 9) challenges to California's death penalty law; and 10) international law.

[01/05] State of California v. Cont'l Ins. Co.
In a lawsuit brought by the state against its insurers for recovery of amounts paid to clean up a hazardous waste site, trial court erred in: 1) admitting certain documents under the "ancient documents" hearsay exception because those documents had not "been generally acted upon as true"; and 2) holding that the state was not allowed to stack the policy limits of all applicable policies across all applicable policy periods.

[01/05] US v. Kelley
A conviction for securities fraud and wire fraud is affirmed where: 1) although the use of bogus account statements to lull defrauded investors is not in and of itself sufficient to establish a securities law violation, the use of such statements is relevant as evidence to prove, inter alia, a defendant's intent to defraud and the extent of the scheme employed; and 2) thus, there was no error in admitting such evidence in this case.

[01/02] People v. Galland
A sealed search warrant affidavit, like search warrant affidavits generally, should ordinarily be part of the court record that is maintained at the court. In this case, the California Supreme Court sets forth a five-requirement test for when a sealed search warrant affidavit may be retained by the law enforcement agency.

[12/17] US v. Budd
Motion to suppress evidence found on Defendant's computer was properly denied. The allegedly illegal seizure of his computer was not exploited and the incriminating statements that he made during completely voluntary interviews with the police were not derivative of that seizure.

[12/17] US v. Dean
Conviction is affirmed for possession of a firearm by a felon. In finding that Defendant verbally consented to the police search, the district court did not err in crediting the testimony of the two arresting officers.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[12/31] Alpine Bank v. Hubbell
In a lawsuit arising after plaintiffs failed to repay a construction loan made by plaintiff-bank, summary judgment against defendants-homeowners on all claims and on their counterclaims is affirmed where: 1) a contract counterclaim, based on an alleged breach of the contractually implied duty of good faith and fair dealing arising from bank's failure to oversee the construction, was barred by a provision in the parties' agreement; 2) for purposes of negligent-misrepresentation counterclaims, one alleged misrepresentation regarding the contractor was nonactionable puffery and the others lacked the requisite state of mind; 3) bank did not have a duty to disclose negative information regarding the construction or the contractor; and 4) bank's advertising slogan did not violate the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

[01/05] Ashley County v. Pfizer, Inc.
In a suit by Arkansas counties against manufacturers and distributors of products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine seeking recovery of costs stemming from the methamphetamine epidemic in the state, grant of defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is affirmed where: 1) the circumstances connecting the sales of cold medication to the provision of government services were simply too attenuated to give rise to an implied contract between the manufacturers and county providers to state a cause of action for unjust enrichment; 2) common law nuisance and Arkansas statutory claims failed for lack of proximate causation.

[01/05] C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp.
Trial court erred in sustaining demurrer to complaint against medical center for sexual harassment under Civil Code section 51.9 and for the negligent hiring, supervision and retention of nursing assistant who sexually assaulted and harassed plaintiff. Court holds that: 1) the judicially-noticed documents offered by defendant do not negate plaintiff's allegations that defendant directly or indirectly employed nursing assistant who sexually harassed plaintiff; 2) plaintiff was not required to allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship between herself and the medical center to state a viable claim for sexual harassment under section 51.9; and 3) complaint contains adequate allegations to hold the defendant corporation liable under section 51.9 for the sexual abuse of plaintiff by its employee.

[01/05] Cibula v. US
In a medical malpractice suit brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the district court erred by applying Virginia law and deciding not to place damages for future medical expenses into a reversionary trust. On remand, the court must apply California law, that being the state in which Plaintiffs were domiciled at the time of the underlying incidents, and determine whether the creation of a reversionary trust would impose liability on the government in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual.

[12/30] Food Pro Int'l, Inc. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
In connection to a tort claim brought by an injured construction worker against plaintiff, judgment in favor of defendant-insurer in plaintiff-insuree's claim for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is reversed where: 1) there was no merit to plaintiff's punitive damages argument; but 2) the trial court erred in finding that defendant-insurer had no duty to defend plaintiff.

[12/30] Doe v. SexSearch.com
District court correctly dismissed this suit, brought against an online adult dating service by one of its subscribers. Plaintiff failed to state a claim in alleging that the service is at fault for his sexual relationship with a minor and the harm that resulted from his arrest, notwithstanding that the service requires each subscriber to promise that he or she is at least eighteen years old.

[12/04] Mercury Ins. Co. v. Pearson
Pedestrian who was struck by an uninsured motorist while crossing an intersection with his fiancée is not entitled to coverage under his fiancée's auto insurance policy. Judgment in favor of auto insurer is affirmed where the policy unambiguously extends uninsured motorist coverage to pedestrians only if they are "named insureds" or their spouses or relatives living in the same household.

More...

Insurance Law

[01/05] State of California v. Cont'l Ins. Co.
In a lawsuit brought by the state against its insurers for recovery of amounts paid to clean up a hazardous waste site, trial court erred in: 1) admitting certain documents under the "ancient documents" hearsay exception because those documents had not "been generally acted upon as true"; and 2) holding that the state was not allowed to stack the policy limits of all applicable policies across all applicable policy periods.

[12/30] Food Pro Int'l, Inc. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
In connection to a tort claim brought by an injured construction worker against plaintiff, judgment in favor of defendant-insurer in plaintiff-insuree's claim for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is reversed where: 1) there was no merit to plaintiff's punitive damages argument; but 2) the trial court erred in finding that defendant-insurer had no duty to defend plaintiff.

[12/29] Sanders v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am.
Insurance company correctly deducted claimant's social security disability payments from the amount owed him under long-term disability insurance. Although his SSDI payments arose from his inability to work due to mental illness, while his long-term disability payments arose from his inability to work due to physical impairments, his inability to work constituted a single disability with both mental and physical causes.

[12/24] McCauley v. First Unum Life Ins. Co.
In a challenge to defendent-insurer's denial of plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is reversed and remanded where: 1) in light of the Supreme Court decision in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan administrator abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's claim; 2) the administrator had a conflict of interest because it had both the discretionary authority to determine the validity of the employee's claim and paid the benefits under the policy; 3) a reasonable trier of fact would conclude that defendant-insurer's denial of long-term disability was arbitrary and capricious; and 4) plaintiff was entitled to benefits and interest running from September 18, 1995, the date on which defendant-insurer rejected plaintiff's appeal.

[12/23] Iroquois on the Beach, Inc. v. Gen. Star Indem. Co.
In an action brought against defendant-insurer by a seasonal hotel insured under an "all risk" policy raising claims for water and wind damage losses sustained to its building, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the record without dispute established that continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water over a period of at least fourteen days caused the damages to the insured hotel; and 2) this cause came within a policy exclusion

[12/22] Dickerson v. Lexington Ins. Co.
In a claim against defendant-insurance company for failure to pay plaintiff's homeowner's policy claim timely following Hurricane Katrina, district court award of $175,467 in damages, penalties, and attorneys' fees is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded where: 1) a reasonable fact finder could conclude that plaintiff's expert offered the more credible analysis of the damage to the home and the cost of rebuilding it; 2) the language of policy permitted recovery of only the actual cash value of an item until such time as the insured furnishes the insurer a receipt for replacement of that item; 3) the court did not err in determining that plaintiff proved defendant-insurer's bad faith based on its arbitrary and capricious withholding of payments under the policy for the swelling; 4) the intersection of both the Louisiana Civil Code and Title 22 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes did not bar recovery of damages for mental anguish by policyholders who claimed their insurers have acted toward them in bad faith; 5) state law clearly prohibited the continuing-breach rationale employed by the district court in this case; and 6) it was possible, however, that some damage was not discovered until after a particular date.

[12/04] Mercury Ins. Co. v. Pearson
Pedestrian who was struck by an uninsured motorist while crossing an intersection with his fiancée is not entitled to coverage under his fiancée's auto insurance policy. Judgment in favor of auto insurer is affirmed where the policy unambiguously extends uninsured motorist coverage to pedestrians only if they are "named insureds" or their spouses or relatives living in the same household.

More...