Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[07/22] California Dep't of Water Res. v. Powerex Corp.
In a case arising out of the 2000-2001 California energy crisis, an order remanding the case to state court is reversed and remanded where: 1) review of a district court's decision to decline an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not barred by 28 U.S.C. section 1447(d); 2) in light of certain Supreme Court precedent, there is jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1291 to review the remand order; and 3) defendant, a Canadian corporation that markets and distributes electric power, is an organ of British Columbia, and thus falls within the definition of "foreign state" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and is entitled to a federal bench trial.

[07/21] Wheeler v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.
In a suit alleging violations of sections 192 (a) and (b) of the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA), denial of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where a plaintiff need not prove an "adverse effect on competition" to prevail under the relevant provisions of the PSA.

[07/21] Bandana Trading Co., Inc. v. Quality Infusion Care, Inc.
In an action for breach of contract, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the trial court erred when it refused to remove a juror for misconduct after the juror applauded by clapping her hands during defendant's rebuttal argument; 2) defendant was entitled to a new trial because the same juror committed misconduct during deliberations when she injected technical knowledge into the deliberations, intimidating other jurors and rushing them into a verdict.

[07/17] Phar-Mor, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.
In the bankruptcy context, a vendor's administrative-expense priority on its reclamation claim is not effectively extinguished when the goods subject to reclamation are sold and the proceeds used to satisfy a secured creditor's superior claim.

[06/26] Peterson v. Cellco Partnership
Judgment dismissing plaintiffs' case with prejudice after the court sustained defendant's demurrers is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to support their standing to bring an unfair competition claim; and 2) plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim was based on alleged Insurance Code violations for which no private right of action exists, and plaintiffs received the benefit of the bargain.

[05/14] N. Texas Speciality Physicians v. FTC
In a revised opinion, a petition for review of an opinion and order by the FTC regarding allegations of price fixing is granted and the case remanded to modify the order where: 1) the FTC had jurisdiction by virtue of the adverse effects to out-of-state parties; 2) although defendant is a single entity, it is controlled by a group of competitors with substantially similar economic interests; 3) a quick-look analysis was appropriate since the anticompetitive effects were obvious; 4) denial of a discovery motion did not violate due process; and 5) a subsection of the remedial order was overly broad and internally inconsistent.

More...

Workers' Comp

[07/22] Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers' Assoc. v. County of Los Angeles
In a case brought by certain retired deputy sheriffs challenging Los Angeles county's policies concerning payment for excess accumulated vacation hours, judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where the policy discriminated against deputies suffering work-related injuries in violation of Labor Code section 4850.

[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.

[05/28] Arteaga v. Brink's, Inc.
In a suit brought by a former employee, who was discharged after being subjected to an internal investigation of missing cash, asserting claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for physical disability discrimination and alleged wrongful termination of employment in retaliation for filing workers' compensation claims, summary judgment for employer is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's reported symptoms of pain and numbness did not constitute a "physical disability" under the FEHA; 2) employer's lack of confidence in plaintiff-employee as a result of the internal investigation constituted a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for termination; and 3) although temporal proximity existed between plaintiff-employee's disclosure of symptoms and subsequent discharge, it did not create a triable fact as to pretext in light of the performance issues raised by employer before he engaged in protected activity.

[05/23] Nance v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
In an action alleging violations of, inter alia, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Tennessee Handicap Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) arbitration of related contractual claims under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) does not bar de novo review of statutory claims in federal court; 2) plaintiff failed to show an adverse employment action since she was considered to have resigned without notice for not following the reporting procedures set up by the CBA; 3) there was insufficient evidence to show that plaintiff was constructively discharged; 4) plaintiff failed to meet the 1250 hour threshold to qualify for FMLA leave since she resigned without notice; 5) plaintiff failed to show that she was discharged for purposes of retaliatory discharge and whistleblower claims; and 6) there was no evidence for her claims of outrageous conduct and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing.

[05/22] McLaurin v. Noble Drilling (US) Inc.
In a negligence action, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) a claim under section 905(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) for vessel negligence is not cognizable since plaintiff was not injured "on navigable waters;" and 2) section 933 of the LHWCA preserves a maritime worker's ability to pursue separate claims against third parties including vessel owners allegedly responsible for the injury.

[05/20] Ramirez v. Murdick
In a claim for liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs for the late payment of Workers' Compensation benefits, summary judgment for the defendants is affirmed where: 1) the remedies under section 2357 do not apply since payment was mailed by the defendant within the thirty day period; and 2) the court did not err in converting plaintiff's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment since the plaintiff could not recover under the facts.

More...