Case Summaries

Admiralty

[08/06] Southwest Marine, Inc. v. US
Fees incurred by plaintiff-shipyard operator during its unsuccessful defense of a private party Clean Water Act lawsuit are not allowable costs under Subpart 31.2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. sections 31.201-31.205.

[08/04] Aguilera v. Alaska Juris F/V
In the context of general maritime law and injured seamen, the circuit court rules that maintenance and cure payments are subject to withholding for child support obligations, so long as those payments constitute income under relevant state law.

[07/25] Bd. of Comm'rs of the Orleans Levee Dist. v. M/V Belle of Orleans
In an admiralty action seeking to enforce a maritime lien raising contract and tort claims involving a paddlewheeler vessel that broke loose from its moorings during Hurricane Katrina, dismissal for lack of admiralty jurisdiction and denial of defendant's Rule 59(e) motion to alter, amend, or vacate are affirmed and reversed in part where: 1) the paddlewheeler was a "vessel" for purposes of establishing admiralty jurisdiction; 2) the district court improperly determined that it lacked admiralty jurisdiction over a tort claim; 3) the district court improperly refused to issue a writ of attachment under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules; and 4) a contract claim was properly dismissed for lack of admiralty jurisdiction because the lease at issue, while partially maritime in nature, was not a maritime contract for purposes of creating a maritime lien.

[07/23] Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. US Envtl. Prot. Agency
In an action challenging a regulation originally promulgated by the EPA in 1973 exempting certain marine discharges from the permitting scheme of sections 301(a) and 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a decision vacating the regulation is affirmed where: 1) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the suit; 2) the EPA acted ultra vires in promulgating the regulation and its denial of plaintiffs' 1999 petition requesting a repeal of the regulation was not in accordance with law; and 3) the remedial order was a proper exercise of the district court's discretion.

[07/16] Turbomeca, S.A. v. Era Helicopters LLC
In a suit for economic loss arising out of the loss of a helicopter due to engine trouble, dismissal of tort claims alleging post-sale failure to warn of a pre-sale product defect is affirmed where: 1) the circuit court refuses to recognize an exception to the East River doctrine for post-sale negligent failure to warn claims; and 2) purchaser is restricted to a warranty or contract cause of action under maritime law.

[07/15] Kirksey v. Tonghai Maritime
In a negligence action brought under 33 U.S.C. section 905(b), judgment for plaintiff is reversed, the case remanded, and judgment rendered for defendants where: 1) a defect in the cargo stow was open and obvious to plaintiff; and 2) defendants did not have a turnover duty to warn or to furnish a reasonably safe ship against an obvious defect or unsafe condition.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[08/19] Oltman v. Holland Am. Line, Inc.
In an action alleging that plaintiffs both contracted a serious gastrointestinal illness on a cruise ship operated by defendants, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where a contractual one-year limitations period should have been equitably tolled based on plaintiffs' timely filing of a state court action and their prompt filing in federal court after the state action was dismissed based on a forum selection clause.

[08/19] Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods, L.L.C.
In a class-action suit alleging injury caused by methylmercury and other harmful compounds in defendant's canned tuna products, grant of a motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded where: 1) the FDA had not enacted a pervasive regulatory scheme regarding mercury in tuna that would preempt plaintiff's state-law claims; 2) the FDA's decision not to require warning labels on tuna was not a conclusive determination preempting a state failure-to-warn claim; and 3) the FDA had not expressly rejected mercury warnings as misbranding under federal law.

[08/19] Joyce v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
In a suit by shareholders of a telecommunications company alleging that defendant, while advising the company during its acquisition by another company, failed to advise plaintiffs on minimizing their exposure to financial losses, grant of a motion to dismiss is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) plaintiffs were bringing a direct action on their own behalf, not a derivative one on behalf of the corporation, and to that extent had standing; but 2) plaintiffs' constructive fraud claim required them to allege that defendant owed them a fiduciary duty, but no such duty never arose.

[08/19] King v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co.
In a malicious prosecution suit alleging that defendant fired plaintiff without probable cause to believe that she had stolen train tickets, denial of plaintiff's discovery motion and summary judgment for defendants are affirmed where: 1) a determination by the System Board of Adjustment that plaintiff had stolen from defendant did not preclude litigation of that question in the context of the malicious prosecution suit; but 2) plaintiff failed to produce evidence of the date on which defendant had filed a criminal complaint against her, and thus would not be able to prove her claim that defendant lacked probable cause at the time of the filing.

[08/19] US v. Flaherty
In an action brought under the False Claims Act alleging that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided a reimbursement check to defendant as a result of a fraudulent scheme, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where qui tam actions cannot be brought pro se.

[08/19] Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.
In wrongful death claims brought by plaintiff-estates against defendant rental car companies, grant of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Graves Amendment, a federal tort reform statute which purports to shield rental car companies from certain vicarious liability suits, preempts the tort claims at issue; and 2) the statute is within the boundaries of Congress's Article I powers.

More...