Case Summaries

Admiralty

[01/12] Bowers v. Whitman
In an appeal from an order of dismissal by the district court, order is affirmed where Oregon's modification of the remedies available under Measure 37 is not a constitutional taking because: 1) any potential property interest that plaintiffs had for compensation or a specific type of land use under Measure 37 had not vested; and 2) Measure 49 does not contravene substantive due process, as it does not implicate fundamental rights or fail rational basis scrutiny.

[12/15] MLC Fishing, Inc. v. Velez
Dismissal for want of federal admiralty and maritime subject matter jurisdiction over fishing vessel owner's complaint seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability pursuant to the Exoneration and Limitation of Liability Act is affirmed where: 1) slip-and-fall accident that took place on a ramp leading from the marina to a floating dock that passengers were required to traverse in order to access the vessel did not occur on or over navigable waters; and 2) the Act did not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

[12/14] F.C. Wheat Maritime Corporation v. US
In an appeal from the district court's award of damages to appellants' in a dispute arising from an allision between a United States Army Corps of Engineers vessel and a private yacht owned by the appellants, judgment is affirmed over appellants' various challenges to the court's determination of damages due them.

[12/13] India Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Kobil Petroleum Ltd.
In a Rule B maritime attachment and garnishment action to secure an arbitration judgment against the charterer of a damaged oil tanker, the district court's order vacating the attachment of a check released to the charterer from the Southern District’s Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) is affirmed, as the CRIS check, which represented the proceeds of electronic funds transfers that are beyond the reach of the district court, is not properly subject to attachment.

[12/12] US v. Mitchell-Hunter
Denial of defendant's motion to dismiss drug crimes charges under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act after he was apprehended at sea on a go-fast vessel is affirmed because the use of State Department certifications memorializing the inability of Colombia and Venezuela to confirm or refute the go-fast's master's claim of national registry, without an opportunity to cross-examine their author, did not constitute a violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right under Crawford.

[10/20] Chem One, Ltd. v. M/V Rickmers Genoa
In defendants' motion to dismiss or consolidate appeals from two interlocutory orders for summary judgment entered in their favor and arising from a collision of cargo ships at sea, motion to dismiss is denied because when a district court has determined all of the liabilities of a party in an admiralty action, and the district court's decision is unaffected by any remaining claims, interlocutory appellate jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(a)(3). Motion to consolidate is granted on equity and judicial economy grounds.

[08/11] Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. US
In a suretyship case concerning a denial of 28 U.S.C. section 1581(i) relief to challenge plaintiff's liability under a surety contract on the grounds that, because it knew of its potential protest grounds in time to file its protest administratively within the time period provided in 19 U.S.C. Section 1514(c)(3) it could not bring a Section 1581(i) lawsuit, judgment of the trial court is reversed where its determination that the surety’s claim accrued prior to the end of the protest period was erroneous.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[02/03] Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Roberts
In a suit brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment that it was required to indemnify its insured for no more than 40 percent of a state court judgment because it had covered its insured for no more than 40 percent of the time in which the state court plaintiff was exposed to lead poisoning, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part, where it was correct in allocating the insurer's liability using the pro-rata time on-the-risk, and its decision to use the plaintiff's date of birth as the starting point for the period in which she was exposed to lead poisoning was sound; and 2) reversed in part, where the district court erred in holding the insurer liable for 24 months of coverage rather than 22, since under the insurance contract, coverage ended when the property was sold.

[02/02] Lore v. City of Syracuse
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.

[02/01] Maxton v. Western States Metals
In a suit alleging negligence and strict liability causes of action based on personal injuries as a result of working with metal products manufactured by the defendants and supplied to the plaintiff's employer, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants on demurrers is affirmed, where: 1) the metal products involved were not inherently dangerous, and no other circumstances justified imposing liability on the defendants for the plaintiff's injuries under the component parts doctrine; 2) the plaintiff did not meet his burden of showing there was a reasonable possibility that the deficiencies in the complaint could be cured by amendment.

[01/30] Sennett v. US
In a suit by a photojournalist seeking money damages against the federal government for FBI agents' alleged violations of the Privacy Protection Act (PPA) stemming from a search of her apartment, the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the United States is affirmed, where: 1) the facts as alleged showed that the officers had probable cause to believe that the plaintiff was involved in criminal activity; and 2) the search of her home related to the investigation of that activity, so that the "suspect exception" to the PPA applied.

[01/27] AE v. County of Tulare
In a suit arising from the sexual assault of a minor by his foster brother, alleging against the county that ran the foster home a claim under 42 USC section 1983 for deliberate indifference and claims for negligence pursuant to California statutes, the district court's dismissal of all claims against the county is reversed, where: 1) the district court abused its discretion when it denied leave to amend the complaint to cure defects in the section 1983 claim; 2) the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the derivative liability claims against the county with prejudice and without leave to amend when it granted leave to amend as to the allegations regarding defendant county social workers.

[01/27] C9 Ventures v. SVC-West, L.P.
In a personal injury suit in which a lessor of helium-filled tanks used to inflate festive balloons cross-complained against the lessee to enforce an indemnification provision on the back of an unsigned invoice, the trial court's judgment in favor of the lessor and award of attorney fees to it is reversed, where: 1) the lessee did not manifest assent to the terms on the back of the unsigned invoice by course of dealing or course of performance, or under basic contract law; 2) the lessee did not sign the invoice or otherwise expressly agree to its terms; 3) an unsigned invoice itself is not a contract, and repeated delivery of a particular form does not make the form part of the parties' agreement; 4) payment of the invoice merely constituted the lessee's performance of the obligation under the oral contract to pay for the rental of the helium-filled tanks; and 5) assuming the transaction was a sale of goods covered by division 2 of the California Commercial Code, the indemnification provision was not an additional term of the contract under section 2207 of the Commercial Code.

[01/26] Munoz v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico
In a retaliation case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and Puerto Rico's general tort statute known as Article 1802, in which the jury found for the plaintiff, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial is affirmed, where: 1) the evidence presented at trial was enough to support the jury's finding of retaliation; 2) the appellants waived defenses based on the statute of limitations, the exclusive remedies bar, and a purportedly erroneous jury instruction; 3) the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the requisite fault or negligence to sustain an Article 1802 claim; and 4) the awards of damages and attorney fees were proper.

More...