News

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[10/08] Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp.
In appeals arising following a jury's award in lost profits from defendant for breach of a requirements contract for the sale of carbon fiber, denial of defendant's motion for a new trial and motion for judgment as a matter of law are affirmed over claims that the district court erred: 1) by refusing to allow it to raise two arguments to the jury; 2) in ruling that defendant failed to make a submissible case that SP had abandoned the Supply Agreement; 3) by failing to remedy unfairly prejudicial testimony at trial; and 4) in various respects with regards to damages issues. However, modification of the jury award to reduce it by almost $16 million is affirmed on cross-appeal where the district court properly found the award duplicative.

[10/08] Noble Sys. Corp. v. Alorica Cent., LLC
In an action against defendants for tortious interference with a business relationship, fraud and intentional and negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy to defraud plaintiff and convert its property, rulings against plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) grant of defendant's motion to take judicial notice of a financing statement it filed was not error; 2) one tortious interference claim failed as the allegations did not show that the defendant acted without justification, and the other claim was properly dismissed; 3) fraud and intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims were meritless; 4) conversion and replevin claims failed as plaintiff possessed no property interest that it could enforce against defendants; and 5) civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims failed as there was no requisite underlying fraud, conversion or tort supporting such claims.

[10/01] In re Heritage Bond Litig.
In a challenge to the scope of bar orders issued in securities class action settlements, bar orders forbidding all suits by non-settling defendant against settling defendants relating to or arising out of the class action are vacated as overly broad and remanded for modification because bar orders issued pursuant to Private Securities Litigation Reform Act section 4(f)(7)(A) or California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 can only bar claims for contribution, indemnity, and claims where the injury is the non-settling defendant's liability to the class action plaintiffs.

More...

Family Law

[10/10] Lamour v. Peake
Denial of a request to reopen a claim for survivor benefits as the spouse of a veteran is vacated and remanded where the issue of whether claimant and decedent had a valid marriage was not considered with application of the "deemed valid" criteria in the relevant regulation, and since this aspect was the sole basis of the rejection of claimant's petition to reopen her claim.

[09/30] M.V. v. Superior Court of California
In a family law matter brought by mother seeking reunification with her infant after her incarceration and deportation for engaging in consensual sexual intercourse with a 15-year old boy, petition for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order and to issue a new and different order continuing reunification services to a 12-month review is affirmed where the court erred in terminating reunification services and setting a .26 hearing by applying the 12-month review standard pursuant to section 366.21, subdivisions (f) and (g), instead of the six-month review standard pursuant to section 366.21, subdivision (e).

[09/25] In Re: Amendments to Fla. R. Juv. P.
Recommended amendments to the Rules of Juvenile Procedure to conform the rules and forms to recent legislation are adopted with a sixty-day comment period.

More...

Immigration Law

[10/10] Shao v. Mukasey
In an immigration matter brought by Chinese nationals who asserted a fear of future persecution, specifically, forced sterilization, if removed to China based on their having fathered or given birth to more than one child, petitions for review of decision of Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying relief from removal are denied where: 1) there was no legal error in the evidentiary framework employed; and 2) because substantial evidence supported the BIA's findings that each of the petitioners failed to demonstrate that his or her stated fears of persecution on return to China were objectively reasonable.

[10/08] Delgado v. Mukasey
Petition for review of denial of applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding under the Convention Against Torture are dismissed in part and denied in part where: 1) the Board of Immigration Appeals may determine by adjudication that a crime is "particularly serious" without it being so classified by regulation; 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of such decisions; and 3) petitioner did not prove a likelihood of future torture if returned to El Salvador.

[10/08] Matadin v. Mukasey
In an immigration matter, petition for review of a decision ordering removal is granted and decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is vacated and remanded where the agency assigned the burden of proof to the petitioner, where it should have required the government to prove abandonment by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence.

More...

Insurance Law

[10/09] US v. Valladares
For charges related to conspiracy, defrauding the U.S. by impairing the functioning and administration of the Medicare Program, submitting false claims to the Department of Health and Human Services, and knowingly soliciting and receiving cash kickbacks involving a federal health care program, convictions and sentences are affirmed over claims that the district court erred by: 1) denying defendant's motions to continue the trial; 2) miscalculating defendant's applicable guideline range by using the commercial bribery guideline in United States Sentencing Guidelines section 2B4.1 (Nov. 2006) to calculate her base offense level, applying an 18-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. section 2B4.1(b)(1)(B), and applying a four-level aggravating-role enhancement under U.S.S.G. section 3B1.1(a); 3) improperly calculating the amount of restitution; and 4) improperly ordering forfeiture.

[10/09] Perera v. United States Fid. and Guaranty Co.
In a wrongful death action against employer, court certified questions because it was unclear under state law whether a plaintiff could maintain a cause of action for bad faith against an insurer when, as here, the insurer's actions never resulted in increased exposure on the part of the insured to excess liability, or an excess judgment.

[10/08] Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. US
In a suit by an insurer seeking a declaration that bonds covering duties for imported goods, for which plaintiff was the surety, were unenforceable, dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is affirmed where the true nature of the action was a challenge to a customs charge, a claim which could be raised in federal court under 28 U.S.C. section 1581(a), but only after plaintiff had brought a proper protest before customs.

More...