What's New

Case Summaries

Antitrust

[03/09] Wampler v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.
In an antitrust action on behalf of a putative class of all residents of multiple dwelling units (MDUs) in five states who were limited to voice, video, and Internet service by contracts with defendant AT&T, dismissal of the action is affirmed where a single MDU (or MDUs in the aggregate) could not plausibly be considered a relevant geographic market for antitrust purposes. (Revised opinion)

[03/03] Byers v. Intuit, Inc.
In plaintiff's putative class action on behalf of U.S. taxpayers against the IRS and a consortium of companies in the electronic tax preparation and filing industry (FFA) claiming violations of the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA) in the charging of fees in exchange for providing e-filing services, as well as a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, dismissal of both claims is affirmed where: 1) the district court was correct in holding that the IOAA does not apply to the FFA members, as it only applies to a government agency and none of the exceptions in Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 1999) apply; and 2) the district court did not err in dismissing the Sherman Act claim as the FFA members are entitled to conduct-based implied antitrust immunity with respect to the anti-competitive action taken pursuant to the Ceiling Provisions of the 2005 Agreement with the IRS.

[03/02] Mac's Shell Serv., Inc. v. Shell Oil Prods. Co.
In an action under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (Act) by service station franchisees, alleging that a petroleum franchisor, Shell, and its assignee had constructively terminated their franchises and constructively failed to renew their franchise relationships by substantially changing the rental terms that the dealers had enjoyed for years, increasing costs for many of them, a circuit court's order partially affirming judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where a franchisee who signs and operates under a renewal agreement with a franchisor may not maintain a constructive nonrenewal claim under the Act. However, the court of appeals' order is reversed in part where a franchisee cannot recover for constructive termination under the Act if the franchisor's allegedly wrongful conduct did not compel the franchisee to abandon its franchise.

[03/01] In re McNulty
Plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking victim status under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, arising from an underlying proceedings where defendant was charged in a criminal information with violating 15 U.S.C. section 1 by participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by allocating packaged-ice customers in certain areas, is denied as plaintiff is not a victim for the purposes of the CVRA.

[02/26] Resolute Natural Resources Co. v. FERC
In a petition for review of certain orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) declining to investigate allegedly anticompetitive conduct by a refining company involving oil pipelines in New Mexico, the petition is dismissed where FERC decisions not to investigate were not subject to review.

[01/21] Thomas v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n
In a physician's action against a health insurer for tortious interference with contract, plaintiff's appeal from a denial of his motion to proceed with the action despite a class action settlement agreement releasing certain claims against defendant is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, where the order was nonfinal because: 1) the summary denial of plaintiff's motion did not expressly rule that plaintiff's claims were released; and 2) even if the order implicitly advised plaintiff that his claims were released and that he was enjoined from prosecuting them, the order did not dispose of the matter because it did not hold plaintiff in contempt or impose any sanction for violating the injunction.

[01/13] Starr v. Sony BMG Music Entm't
In an antitrust action alleging a conspiracy by major record labels to fix the prices and terms under which their music would be sold over the Internet, dismissal of the complaint is reversed where: 1) plaintiffs' allegations were not required to exclude independent self-interested conduct as an explanation for defendants' parallel behavior; and 2) plaintiffs were not required to mention a specific time, place or person involved in each conspiracy allegation.

[01/07] Feesers, Inc. v. Michael Foods, Inc.
In a suit for unlawful price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) against a food manufacturer and a food service management company, judgment in favor of plaintiff-food distributor is vacated with instruction for the district court to enter judgment as a matter of law for defendants as plaintiff cannot satisfy the competitive injury requirement of a prima facie case of price discrimination under section 2(a) of the RPA because the plaintiff and defendant were not competitors, and therefore, plaintiff cannot show it suffered competitive injury under RPA.

[01/06] Allied Orthopedic Apps. Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Group LP
In an antitrust action claiming that plaintiffs overpaid for defendant's pulse oximetry sensors because defendant used improper marketing agreements and made its sensors incompatible with generic products, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) there was no evidence that defendant foreclosed competition in a substantial share of the sensor market; and 2) the undisputed evidence showed that defendant's patented sensor design was an improvement over the previous design.

[12/29] Little Rock Cardiology Clinic PA v. Baptist Health
In an antitrust action alleging a conspiracy to monopolize the market for cardiology services for privately insured patients, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the complaint erroneously defined the product market by how consumers paid for cardiology services. In addition, a grant of plaintiff's motion to tax costs is affirmed where the district court did not err in declining to tax discovery related copying expenses.

More...

Civil Rights

[03/10] Clos v. Corrections Corp. of Am.
In an action by a prisoner claiming that he suffered disability discrimination related to his severe hearing loss, plaintiff's appeal from partial summary judgment for defendants is dismissed where the district court's conclusory order provided no basis for a finding that plaintiff would face hardship or injustice by waiting to appeal until his remaining claim against defendants was fully resolved.

[03/10] Cameron v. N.Y.
In an action for false arrest and malicious prosecution, judgment for defendant-officers is reversed where: 1) prosecutors' opinions as to probable cause and complaining officers' credibility are irrelevant in virtually all cases involving claims of malicious prosecution; and 2) the introduction of such evidence was not harmless because it provided strong external validation for propositions that otherwise would have come in only from the defendants' mouths.

[03/09] Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.

[03/09] Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming excessive force by defendants-officers, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to show as a matter of law that plaintiff's decedent did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; 2) the district court properly found that defendants failed to show as a matter of law that the emergency and exigency exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applied; 3) defendants failed to show that there were no questions of fact regarding whether a security guard had apparent authority to consent and implied consent; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the officers intentionally or recklessly provoked a confrontation.

[03/09] Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.
In an employment discrimination and retaliation action brought by a teacher at a religious school claiming violations of the ADA, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the "ministerial exception" is vacated and remanded as, given the factual findings relating to plaintiff's primary duties as a teacher, the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying her as a ministerial employee.

[03/09] Redd v. Wright
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of plaintiff inmate's confinement in tuberculosis hold following his refusal to submit to tuberculosis testing, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) prior precedent did not "clearly foreshadow" a holding that the testing policy, as applied in this case, violated plaintiff's Free Exercise rights; 2) it could not reasonably be said that defendants acted in violation of clearly established Eighth Amendment law by implementing the policy; and 3) it was not clearly established that plaintiff was entitled to some kind of notice that religious objectors could be exempt from the policy.

[03/08] McBeth v. Himes
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of an investigation by the sheriff's office and the Colorado Department of Human Services that resulted in plaintiff surrendering her license to run a daycare facility in Colorado, partial summary judgment based on qualified immunity to defendant-officials is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff voluntarily relinquished her license before any suspension proceedings could take place; and 2) defendants made a prima facie showing that they acted objectively reasonably when they sought suspension of plaintiff's daycare license. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiff failed to allege and prove that the state officials lacked cause to seek suspension of her license.

[03/05] Bustos v. Martini Club Inc.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on a late-night confrontation with several off-duty police officers, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the election of remedies provisions in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 101.106 applied to state law intentional tort claims against a governmental unit and its employees; 2) plaintiff did not allege facts to suggest that the officers who assaulted him misused or abused their official power; and 3) bystander officers had no constitutional duty to prevent the alleged assault.

[03/05] Quasius v. Schwan Food Co.
In an employment discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where defendant failed to file a motion to withdraw his dispositive admissions after the district court provided ample notice and opportunity to do so.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[03/09] San Francisco Hous. Auth. v. SEIU Local 790
Superior court's order vacating an arbitration award in its entirety on the ground that the the award is contrary to layoff provisions of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the parties is reversed as the remedy imposed by the arbitrator did not conflict with clear and explicit language of the MOU and it was rationally related to the breach identified.

[03/09] Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.
In an employment discrimination and retaliation action brought by a teacher at a religious school claiming violations of the ADA, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the "ministerial exception" is vacated and remanded as, given the factual findings relating to plaintiff's primary duties as a teacher, the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying her as a ministerial employee.

[03/08] McBeth v. Himes
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of an investigation by the sheriff's office and the Colorado Department of Human Services that resulted in plaintiff surrendering her license to run a daycare facility in Colorado, partial summary judgment based on qualified immunity to defendant-officials is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff voluntarily relinquished her license before any suspension proceedings could take place; and 2) defendants made a prima facie showing that they acted objectively reasonably when they sought suspension of plaintiff's daycare license. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiff failed to allege and prove that the state officials lacked cause to seek suspension of her license.

[03/05] Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.

[03/05] Quasius v. Schwan Food Co.
In an employment discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where defendant failed to file a motion to withdraw his dispositive admissions after the district court provided ample notice and opportunity to do so.

[03/04] Smith v. Adventist Health Sys.
In plaintiff's action against defendant-hospital group seeking a preliminary injunction for rejecting his application for hospital privileges and medical staff membership at defendant's hospital, judgment granting the injunction and restoring his privileges is affirmed and the court did not err when it: 1) impliedly found that a statutorily required injunction bond had been waived or forfeited; 2) expressly found that plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits; and 3) balanced the likely interim harm to the parties of granting or denying the preliminary injunction.

[03/04] Uphoff Figueroa v. Alejandro
In plaintiff's action against his employer, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) and several PREPA officials, claiming that the new Popular Democratic Party (PDP) regime discriminated against him because he was a member of the New Progressive Party (NPP), judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) under Branti v, Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980), and its progeny, the position of administrator is not within First Amendment protection because it is a policy position; 2) political discrimination and retaliation claims under the First Amendment cannot be restated as claims under the Equal Protection Clause; and 3) plaintiff did not state a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act because he did not allege he was involved in FLSA-protected activity.

[03/04] Roche v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.
Decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a case brought by a former FAA employer who was terminated from his position as an Air Traffic Control Specialist for sexual harassment is affirmed as the Board did not err in finding that it may hear FAA removal appeals only from Title 5-qualifying employees.

[03/04] Budde v. Kane County Forest Pres.
In a police chief's action against his former employer claiming discrimination based on his disability of alcoholism, in violation of the ADA, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) the employer terminated the plaintiff because of his misconduct, not due to discrimination; 2) plaintiff was not "qualified" to perform his job as police chief based on his failure to comply with workplace rules and his inability to operate a vehicle; and 3) plaintiff's claims for failure to accommodate his alcoholism and retaliation for seeking an accommodation are without merit.

[03/03] City of Laguna Beach v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n
In a city's action against an insurance company seeking reimbursement for incurring workers' compensation liability that exceeded its self-insured retention, grant of insurance company's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the addition of subdivision (c)(13) to Ins. Code section 1063.1 did not abrogate Denny's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 104 Cal.App.4th 1433 (2003); 2) the trial court properly invoked the Denny's rule when it granted summary judgment and concluded that the city cannot obtain reimbursement from defendant under section 1063.1(c)(13) as, although this provision renders the obligation of an insolvent excess workers' compensation insurer a "covered claim" that defendant must ordinarily reimburse, defendant need not reimburse a permissibly self-insured employer for benefits paid to an employee for cumulative injury if the employer's liability is based in part on a period of time when the employer was self-insured and chose not to buy excess insurance for the particular risk.

More...