Case Summaries

Admiralty

[06/25] Crescent Towing & Salvage Co. v. Chios Beauty MV
In an action for damages sustained when defendant's ship collided with plaintiffs' barges and tugboats during Hurricane Katrina, partial judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where the district court did not clearly err in its finding of a predicted "direct hit" on New Orleans by the hurricane, its factual findings based on this finding, and the ultimate finding of negligence to the extent that it relied upon this finding. However, the matter is remanded where the district court needed to enter an order setting the total amount of recovery plaintiffs could recover in rem.

[06/21] Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp.
In an action based on the alleged destruction of goods being shipped, the Ninth Circuit's reversal of the district court's dismissal of the action based on the fact that the parties' contract designated a Tokyo court as the venue for any dispute is reversed where, because the Carmack Amendment does not apply to a shipment originating overseas under a single through bill of lading, the parties' agreement to litigate these cases in Tokyo is binding.

[05/13] Valladolid v. Pac. Ops. Offshore, LP
In a petition for review of the denial of workers' compensation benefits under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) based on an injury on an offshore drilling platform, the petition is granted in part where: 1) the most natural reading of the OCSLA provided coverage for any injury caused by outer continental shelf operations regardless of where the injury occurred; 2) Congress intended to provide LHWCA coverage regardless of the applicability of state law; and 3) the OCSLA claimant must establish a substantial nexus between the injury and extractive operations on the shelf. However, the petition is denied in part where petitioner was not entitled to LHWCA benefits, on the ground that the drilling platform's use as a convenient dumping ground for scrap metal did not convert it into a maritime situs.

[04/16] Harrington v. Atlantic Sounding Co.
In a personal injury action arising out of injuries sustained by plaintiff-seaman, the district court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay the district court action and compel arbitration, is vacated where section 6 of the Federal Employer's Liability Act did not apply to seamen's arbitration agreements, and thus the arbitration agreement was not unenforceable as a matter of law, and the district court's finding that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable due to unconscionability was erroneous.

[04/12] Crimson Yachts v. Betty Lyn II Motor Yacht
In an action seeking to enforce a maritime lien for major repairs plaintiff performed on a motor yacht, the dismissal of plaintiff's in rem claims against the yacht is reversed where the yacht constituted a vessel and, therefore, was subject to maritime liens and the court's admiralty jurisdiction.

[03/19] Borkowski v. F/V Madison Kate, Sea Ventures, LLC
In plaintiffs' suit alleging violations of federal maritime law and state wage laws, district court's judgment is affirmed but based on a different reason where: 1) to the extent the compensatory relief sought under section 10601 is premised on the claim that defendant improperly deducted expenses, there is no evidence upon which any fact-finder could conclude that the deductions were improper; 2) there is nothing in the record that supports an award of punitive damages; and 3) any argument that the district court wrongly decided the merits of the wage claim is considered waived.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[06/25] Crescent Towing & Salvage Co. v. Chios Beauty MV
In an action for damages sustained when defendant's ship collided with plaintiffs' barges and tugboats during Hurricane Katrina, partial judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where the district court did not clearly err in its finding of a predicted "direct hit" on New Orleans by the hurricane, its factual findings based on this finding, and the ultimate finding of negligence to the extent that it relied upon this finding. However, the matter is remanded where the district court needed to enter an order setting the total amount of recovery plaintiffs could recover in rem.

[06/25] Bagby Elevator Co. v. Schindler Elevator Corp.
In an action for tortious interference with contract, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) under the court's highly deferential standard of review, there was no reversible error in the district court's decision to use the pattern jury instruction; 2) there was sufficient evidence of both malice and gross negligence to support an award of exemplary damages; and 3) there was ample evidence of causation to support the verdict.

[06/25] Lal v. State of Cal.
In an action against the California Highway Patrol and certain officers for the shooting death of plaintiff's husband, dismissal of the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute when her attorney failed to meet deadlines and attend hearings is reversed where an attorney's gross negligence constituted an extraordinary circumstance warranting relief from a judgment dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).

[06/24] DDJ Mgmt., LLC v. Rhone Group L.L.C.
In an action claiming that defendants presented plaintiffs with corporate financial statements that were false and misleading, the appellate division's modification of the trial court's order dismissing plaintiffs' fraud claim is reversed where: 1) when a plaintiff has taken reasonable steps to protect itself against deception, it should not be denied recovery merely because hindsight suggested that it might have been possible to detect the fraud when it occurred; and 2) plaintiffs in this action for fraud have alleged facts from which a jury could find that they were justified in relying on the representations defendants made to them.

[06/24] Yanez v. SOMA Envtl. Eng'g, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit for injuries she suffered in an automobile accident, trial court's grant of defendants' motion to reduce the award for medical expenses from $44,519.01 to $18,368.24 is reversed and remanded where: 1) trial court erred in reducing plaintiff's damages to the amount actually paid by her insurers as the amounts written off by plaintiff's health care providers constitute collateral benefits of her insurance; and 2) on remand, the trial court is to award plaintiff prejudgment interest under Civ. Code section 3291.

[06/18] Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Merrell
In plaintiffs' wrongful death and survival claims against Wal-Mart for the death of their son from smoke inhalation, claiming that a halogen lamp purchased from Wal-Mart caused the fire, the court of appeals' reversal of the trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs produced evidence on each challenged element of their cause of action is reversed as, plaintiff's expert's testimony was legally insufficient to support causation.

More...