What's New

Case Summaries

Antitrust

[07/18] LA ex rel Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co.
In a parens patriae action alleging violations of Louisiana's antitrust laws, denial of plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to state court after removal to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act is affirmed where: 1) the Louisiana attorney general has power to bring parens patriae antitrust actions and possesses broad powers to vindicate the interests of the state; 2) the policyholders and not the state are the real parties in interest due to the state's request for treble damages; and 3) plaintiff waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity.

[07/15] Campfield v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
In a suit alleging violations of the Sherman Act, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), and tortious interference with contractual relations, dismissal and summary judgment for defendant, and a decision not to rule on plaintiff's objection to discovery orders are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claims under section 2 of the Sherman Act failed to allege an appropriate market; 2) defendants dod not engage in per se horizontal restraint of trade under section 1 of the Act; 3) claims under section 1 of the Sherman Act failed for failure to allege a legally relevant market; 4) plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence for a CCPA claim; 5) tortious interference claims failed for lack of evidence; and 6) there was no abuse of discretion in not ruling on plaintiff's discovery motion.

[07/11] Rick-Mik Enters. Inc. v. Equilon Enters., LLC
In an action brought by franchisees, Shell and Texaco gasoline stations, alleging that defendant-franchisor violated antitrust laws by illegally tying two distinct products (the franchises and certain credit-card processing services), dismissal of antitrust and related state law counts from the complaint is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' complaint failed to allege market power in the relevant market; 2) in the alleged franchising context, credit card processing services are not a product distinct from the franchise itself; 3) price-fixing allegations were impermissibly vague; and 4) plaintiffs waived the opportunity to attempt to cure such deficiencies.

[07/02] Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
In a republished opinion, a petition for review of an order of the FTC requiring petitioner to divest assets acquired from a Pennsylvania company since they would likely result in a substantial lessening of competition or tend to create a monopoly is denied where: 1) the FTC correctly applied the legal standards of burdens of proof and persuasion; 2) the FTC properly analyzed the "potential entry" defense and had substantial evidence to conclude that "potential entry" evidence was insufficient to rebut the prima facie case; 3) substantial evidence supported its factual findings; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in the issuance of its remedy provisions. (Substituted opinion)

[05/27] Gerlinger v. Amazon.com Inc.
In an antitrust action challenging a marketing agreement between the booksellers Amazon.com and Borders, dismissal of the action is affirmed where plaintiff lacked standing because he did not show that he ever purchased an item for a higher price than he would have paid had there been no marketing agreement, and thus he had suffered no injury-in-fact.

[05/15] In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litigation
In an antitrust action involving the scrap metal market in Northeastern Ohio, judgment and damages award for plaintiffs are affirmed where: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in allowing expert testimony based on allegedly erroneous data; 2) the fact that the jury awarded damages are below the figure mentioned by an expert witness did not mean that there was insufficient evidence since the jury was entitled to award damages based on expert testimony it found credible; 3) there was no "impermissible fluid recovery" since plaintiffs provided evidence of a class-wide aggregate injury; 4) there was no abuse of discretion in the certification of a class ; and 5) any error in instructions to the jury regarding fraudulent concealment was harmless since the jury heard evidence of fraudulent concealment dating before the earliest date of consideration set by the court.

[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.

[05/14] N. Texas Specialty Physicians
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.

[05/07] B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc.
In an antitrust case involving the legality of an agreement which established an exclusive network of preferred providers to supply types of medical equipment to enrollees in certain health-benefits plans offered to Chrysler, Ford, and state employees and retirees, a judgment and sanctions against plaintiff whose application to the network was rejected are affirmed, and appellate sanctions imposed, where: 1) plaintiff's antitrust claims lacked any conceivable merit; 2) a challenge to a discovery order failed; and 3) sanctions imposed below were not an abuse of discretion, and further, appellate sanctions were warranted.

[05/01] Michigan Div. - Monument Builders of N. Am. v. Michigan Cemetery Ass'n
In an antitrust action involving allegations of anticompetitive behavior in the market for burial monuments in the state of Michigan, dismissal of the charges is affirmed and denial of sanctions against the plaintiff vacated and remanded for further proceedings where: 1) plaintiff's definition of the geographic market as each individual cemetery lot was too narrow as a matter of law; and 2) the district court failed to provide an adequate reason for the denial of sanctions against plaintiffs.

More...

Civil Rights

[07/23] Meza v. Livingston
In an inmate's suit against state prison officials raising claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, denial of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed for lack of jurisdiction where an appeal of the district court's alleged failure to address defendants' Eleventh Amendment immunity claims was an unreviewable interlocutory appeal.

[07/23] Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp.
In an employment discrimination case involving an employment agreement containing a mandatory arbitration clause, denial of defendant-employer's motion to compel arbitration and partial summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) for purposes of a breach-of-agreement theory, plaintiff did not properly initiate arbitration under the terms of his employment agreement via a letter he sent; and 2) the district court improperly granted summary judgment in plaintiff's favor on the issue of waiver.

[07/23] Magallanes v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co.
Dismissal of an employment-discrimination suit because the parties had settled is reversed where defendant-employer did not meet its burden to prove that plaintiff's attorney had in fact been authorized to enter into a settlement agreement.

[07/23] Montano v. Chicago
In a suit seeking recovery for injuries suffered by plaintiffs in confrontations with police, dismissals of plaintiffs' claims are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court clearly erred in dismissing plaintiffs' claims with prejudice as a sanction for abuse of the judicial process; 2) judgments as a matter of law for police officers on certain claims was error as there was an evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for plaintiffs; 3) summary judgment for defendants on claims that they lacked probable cause to arrest plaintiffs for public drinking and disorderly conduct, and that they failed to intervene to prevent the use of excessive force by other officers, was proper; and 4) summary judgment for city on a liability claim under Monell was proper where plaintiffs failed to produce evidence to show deliberate indifference by the police board to constitutional violations by its officers.

[07/23] Gil v. Reed
In an inmate's negligence, malpractice, and civil rights suit against prison medical staff, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where the record contained sufficient evidence to show genuine issues of material fact on: 1) inmate's Eighth Amendment claim that prison staff were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs; and 2) whether defendants had met the standard of care, using the state-law standard as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act.

[07/22] Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Mukasey
In a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), the statute is held unconstitutional where it is: 1) a content-based restriction on speech subject to strict scrutiny; 2) not narrowly tailored; 3) not the least restrictive means to achieving the government's purpose of protecting children from harmful materials on the Web; and 4) impermissibly overbroad and vague.

[07/22] George v. Shelton
In a suit alleging that state employees violated 42 U.S.C. section 1983 by refusing to hire plaintiff because of his affiliation with the Republican Party, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiff produced no evidence that his political affiliation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision not to hire.

[07/22] Parsons v. City of Pontiac
In a former firefighter's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against city and police alleging that his constitutional rights were violated because he was arrested and detained without probable cause, summary judgment for defendants is reversed and remanded where: 1) defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity for purposes of false arrest and false imprisonment claims, as a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether plaintiff's initial arrest was supported by probable cause; and 2) for the same reasons, state law claims also required reinstatement.

[07/22] Williams v. Town of Greenburgh
In an action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against defendant-town and two municipal officers is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's desire to use town's community center was not protected by his right to freedom of movement; 2) plaintiff's speech was not silenced or chilled by defendant's allegedly punitive conduct; and 3) probable cause supported the arrest and prosecution of plaintiff's criminal trespass.

[06/20] Urban Habitat v. City of Pleasanton
In an action against a city involving, inter alia, certain of its local land use decisions, dismissal of non-profit organization's petition for writ of mandate and complaint pursuant to defendants' demurrer is reversed in part where the trial court: 1) misconstrued the applicable statute of limitations set out in Government Code section 65009 and Code of Civil Procedure section 338 related to City's compliance in providing low-cost housing (a); and 2) misapplied ripeness doctrine.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[07/23] Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp.
In an employment discrimination case involving an employment agreement containing a mandatory arbitration clause, denial of defendant-employer's motion to compel arbitration and partial summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) for purposes of a breach-of-agreement theory, plaintiff did not properly initiate arbitration under the terms of his employment agreement via a letter he sent; and 2) the district court improperly granted summary judgment in plaintiff's favor on the issue of waiver.

[07/23] Magallanes v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co.
Dismissal of an employment-discrimination suit because the parties had settled is reversed where defendant-employer did not meet its burden to prove that plaintiff's attorney had in fact been authorized to enter into a settlement agreement.

[07/22] Lopez v. Imperial Cty. Sheriff
In a case arising after respondent terminated appellants from their jobs as correctional sergeants, judgment remanding matter to the Employee Appeals Board is affirmed where the Board's previous tie votes regarding appellants' termination were the equivalent of a failure to act, and the trial court did not err in remanding the matters for the Board to conduct another vote.

[07/22] Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Ct
In an action involving alleged violations of laws governing rest and meal breaks on transfer from the state supreme court, the court of appeals rules that: 1) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking rest periods, they need only provide, not ensure, rest periods are taken; 2) employers need only authorize and permit rest periods every four hours or major fraction thereof and they need not, where impracticable, be in the middle of each work period; 3) employers are not required to provide a meal period for every five consecutive hours worked; 4) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking meal periods, they need only provide them and not ensure they are taken; and 5) while employers cannot coerce, require or compel employees to work off the clock, they can only be held liable for employees working off the clock if they knew or should have known they were doing so.

[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.

[07/22] George v. Shelton
In a suit alleging that state employees violated 42 U.S.C. section 1983 by refusing to hire plaintiff because of his affiliation with the Republican Party, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiff produced no evidence that his political affiliation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision not to hire.

[07/22] Parsons v. City of Pontiac
In a former firefighter's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against city and police alleging that his constitutional rights were violated because he was arrested and detained without probable cause, summary judgment for defendants is reversed and remanded where: 1) defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity for purposes of false arrest and false imprisonment claims, as a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether plaintiff's initial arrest was supported by probable cause; and 2) for the same reasons, state law claims also required reinstatement.

[07/21] Smith v. Selma Cmty. Hosp.
In a matter concerning the termination of doctor-plaintiff's medical staff membership and hospital privileges, grant of doctor's petition for writ of mandate reinstating a judicial review committee's decision in his favor is affirmed where, in reversing the committee's decision, the governing board: 1) wrongly concluded that the judicial review committee did not make the findings of fact required by the bylaws; 2) erred in concluding that the judicial review committee considered irrelevant and inappropriate evidence; 3) erred in concluding that the judicial review committee was obligated to accept as true the findings of two other hospitals that terminated doctor-plaintiff's privileges; and 4) misapplied the substantial evidence rule.

[07/18] Salmon Run Shopping Ctr. LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
An NLRB order requiring a shopping mall operator to allow a union to distribute literature on mall premises is vacated where the mall operator did not improperly discriminate against the union under section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.

[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...