Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[02/01] In re American Express Merchants' Litigation
In a class action asserting Sherman Act claims, brought against a charge card issuer whose card acceptance agreement purported to preclude a merchant from bringing a class action lawsuit, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissal of the case is reversed, where the cost of plaintiffs' individually arbitrating their dispute with the defendant would be prohibitive, effectively depriving them of the statutory protections of the antitrust laws, and thus the class action waiver in the arbitration provision was unenforceable.

[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.

[01/24] Long v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A. Inc.
In a putative class action against a men's clothing retailer alleging that its printing of “EXPIRY: 04/##” on a credit card receipt willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA)'s prohibition against printing the expiration date of the a credit card upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed, where: 1) FACTA prohibits a merchant from printing expiration date information on a receipt provided to the consumer, even if the year is redacted; but 2) the defendant's interpretation of FACTA, although erroneous, was at least objectively reasonable, and thus there was no "willful" violation that could support a claim.

[01/24] Mabey Bridge & Shore, Inc. v. Schoch
In a suit by a corporation engaged in the business of supplying temporary steel bridges for construction projects, seeking a declaration that the Pennsylvania Steel Products Procurement Act, as interpreted and enforced by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), is unconstitutional, and requesting a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining PennDOT from prohibiting the use of the company's temporary bridges on its projects, the district court's grant of summary judgment against the company on all its claims is affirmed, where: 1) the state Steel Act was not preempted by the federal Buy America Act and related federal regulations; 2) the Steel Act is not unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause; 3) PennDOT's actions did not violate the Contract Clause; and 4) PennDOT's application of the Steel Act did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

[01/20] Khan v. Dell Inc.
On a motion to compel arbitration brought by a defendant computer manufacturer in a case alleging design defects brought as a putative consumer class action by a purchaser, the district court's judgment denying the motion is vacated and the case remanded, where: 1) the arbitration agreement in the purchase contract did not indicate the parties' unambiguous intent not to arbitrate their disputes if the named arbitrator was unavailable; and 2) Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires a court to address such unavailability by appointing a substitute arbitrator.

[01/17] Antilles Cement Corp. v. Fortuno
In a suit by an importer of foreign cement seeking a declaratory judgment that two statutes of Puerto Rico violate the dormant foreign commerce clause, the district court's judgment invalidating the statutes is affirmed in part and reversed in part, where: 1) the federal Buy American Act does not preempt the statutes; 2) Puerto Rico, by its statute requiring that local construction projects financed with funds from the federal government or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico use only construction materials manufactured in Puerto Rico, is acting as a market participant not subject to the Commerce Clause; and 3) certain provisions of Puerto Rico's statute imposing labeling requirements on cement sold in Puerto Rico discriminate against sellers of foreign cement in violation of the dormant foreign commerce clause.

[01/05] American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. v. Sidamon-Eristoff
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court denying appellant's motion for a preliminary injunction, judgment is affirmed where appellant failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its constitutional challenge to N.J. Laws Chapter 25, which amended New Jersey’s unclaimed property statute to reduce the abandonment period for travelers checks.

More...

Workers' Comp

[01/11] Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid
In an appeal from a judgment of the appeals court vacating an administrative dismissal of respondent's Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) claim for benefits as a surviving spouse, judgment is affirmed where a claimant seeking benefits under the OCSLA must establish a substantial nexus between the injury and extractive operations on the shelf.

[12/13] In the Matter of Elrac, Inc. v. Exum
In an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division permitting arbitration of a claim by plaintiff-employee for uninsured motorist benefits, judgment is affirmed because a self-insured employer whose employee is involved in an automobile accident may be liable to that employee for uninsured motorist benefits, notwithstanding the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law.

[10/31] County of Kern v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court affirming an administrative decision in a claim for worker's compensation, judgment is affirmed where a volunteer firefighter with a local nonprofit firefighting organization was a county employee for purposes of workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code section 3361.1.

[09/13] Motheral v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
In a petition for review of a judgment of the defendant-Board denying reconsideration of an administrative decision calculating petitioner's disability benefits based solely on his full-time employment at minimum wage, Lab. Code section 4653, judgment is reversed where section 4454 mandates the inclusion of the market value of petitioner's living quarters, utilities, and car allowance.

[08/11] Baker v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd.
In dispute involving the proper calculation of cost of living adjustments under Labor Code section 4659(c), judgment of the appeals court is reversed where through the operative language of Section 4659(c), the Legislature intended that such adjustments be calculated and applied prospectively commencing on the January 1 following the date on which the injured worker first becomes entitled to receive, and actually begins receiving, such benefit payments.

[04/20] Edward Carey Const. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund
In an action for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing after denial of workers compensation benefits by defendant, summary judgment in favor of defendant is reversed because causes of action claimed by plaintiff are not barred by workers compensation exclusivity.

[04/18] U.S. Fidelity v. Lee Investments
In diversity action by plaintiff-insurance company seeking rescission of a workers compensation policy, judgment of the district court denying motion to dismiss is affirmed because court had subject matter jurisdiction where exclusive jurisdiction was not vested by state law in a compensation agency.

More...