Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[05/16] Brittingham v. GMC
In a negligence and intentional misconduct case, summary judgment for defendants and denial of a motion to remand the case to state court is vacated and remanded where: 1) there was no federal preemption under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) did not impose a duty on defendant to conduct pre-employment examinations and disclose information; and 2) the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the action since the plaintiff's claims were rooted in state law independent of the CBA.

[05/16] Reese v. Herbert
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action for damages wherein plaintiff alleged various claims of police misconduct in arresting him, order denying plaintiff's motion to leave to file a second amended complaint and disallowing an expert witness affidavit is affirmed, but summary judgment for defendant on basis of qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the additional utility extracted from reviewing defendants' records and consulting an expert did not justify plaintiff's delay in seeking leave to amend; 2) the expert affidavit was properly excluded, as plaintiff's failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26 was both unjustified and harmful to the defendants; but 3) the district court erred by failing to review the full record on summary judgment and misapplied the legal standards for summary judgment.

[05/14] Ericson v. Fed. Express Corp.
In a premises liability tort action arising from a third-party's assault and robbery incident in defendant's parking lot, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the third-party assault was not foreseeable under even the "regular reasonable forseeability" test; and 2) the negligent undertaking doctrine was inapplicable.

More...

Insurance Law

[05/15] In re Marriage Cases
In an action challenging California's ban on gay marriage, the state Supreme Court rules that the California Constitution must be interpreted to guarantee the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples. The laws at issue are unconstitutional to the extent each statute reserves the designation of "marriage" exclusively to opposite-sex couples and denies same-sex couples access to that designation. The purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California's current marriage statutes, the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage, is not a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause.

[05/08] Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)

[05/08] In Re: Peanut Crop Ins. Litig.
In an action against the government over the indemnification of losses covered by a privately issued and governmentally backed insurance policy, summary judgment for farmers on breach of contract claims is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) the policy did not create any contractual obligation for insurers to indemnify the farmers for lost peanuts in 2002 at a 31 cent quota rate since it was contingent on 2002 farm poundage quota allocations being made to individual farmers, and such allocations were never made; 2) the prevention doctrine was misapplied since the indemnification of the farmers did not depend on the allocation of quotas by the government; and 3) there was no detrimental reliance since government programs are subject to congressional modification, and the farmers had been notified that there would be revisions to the peanut quota program.

More...