Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[07/02] US v. Pepper
Sentence for drug crimes is affirmed where: 1) this court's prior remand did not require the district court to grant defendant a 40 percent downward departure for substantial assistance as the remand was a general remand for resentencing and did not place any limitations on the discretion of the district court judge in resentencing; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant more than a 20 percent reduction based on defendant's substantial assistance; 3) the court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for a downward variance based on his post-sentencing rehabilitation and the cost of his incarceration; and 4) defendant's sentence was not unreasonable.

[07/02] US v. Davis
Conviction for firearms possession is affirmed where: 1) the search of defendant's vehicle without a warrant was permissible under the Fourth Amendment as it was lawful search incident to arrest, and thus firearm found in vehicle was admissible; and 2) the court properly ruled that the search was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement as well.

[07/02] US v. Schmidt
Conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition is affirmed where: 1) the district court had jurisdiction over the offense as defendant's possession of a firearm manufactured out of country and ammunition manufactured out of state was sufficient to satisfy 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(g)(1)'s required nexus to interstate commerce; and 2) defendant's sentence was not unreasonable.

[07/02] US v. Lee
Sentence for aiding and abetting assault with intent to rob a post office is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in overruling defendant's objections to the sentencing enhancements without requiring the government to present any evidence as there was sufficient evidence in the record to support each of the enhancements; and 2) the court did not err in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines sec. 2B3.1(b)(4)(B), as one of his accomplices struck a woman attempting to leave the post office during the robbery, thereby physically restraining the victim.

[07/02] Roubideaux v. North Dakota Dep't of Corr. and Rehabilitation
In a sex discrimination action brought by female prison inmates, district court grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the female inmates had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the two challenged gender-explicit statutes; 2) the evidence in the record raises no inference of gender discrimination in the decision-making process because the statutes in question substantially relate to the important government objective of providing adequate segregated housing for female inmates, and any equal protection claim arising out the inmates' previous housing was mooted by their transfer to the Correction and Rehabilitation Center; 3) prison industry assignments were not subject to Title IX as the primary purpose of the program is employment, not education; and 4) the vocational education programs were within the scope of Title IX, and the district court did not err in finding that any differences in the programs offered men and women were a function of the location of the facilities and not gender discrimination.

[07/02] People v. Nguyen
Court of Appeals judgment is reversed where the absence of a constitutional or statutory right to jury trial under the juvenile law does not, under Apprendi, preclude the use of a prior juvenile adjudication of criminal misconduct to enhance the maximum sentence for a subsequent adult felony offense by the same person under California's Three Strikes law.

[07/02] People v. Farley
Conviction for first degree murder and other crimes and sentence to death is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motions for a change of venue and in its rulings on various challenges to the makeup of the jury; 2) the court did not err in denying several motions to suppress and in its evidentiary rulings, in various instructions it made to the jury, and in denying requested defense instructions; 3) the court did not err denying defendant access to data concerning his past employment and in prohibiting him from introducing evidence on that subject, and did not err in refusing to give proposed instructions on aggravating and mitigating circumstances; and 4) there is no merit to defendant's argument that the death penalty statute violates the United States Constitution.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[07/02] Hughes v. Pair
Court of Appeals judgment for defendant in a sexual harassment action is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's factual allegations fail to establish the severe or pervasive conduct necessary to pursue a claim of hostile environment sexual harassment under Civil Code sec. 51.9, as the conduct was not so egregious as to alter the conditions of the underlying professional relationship and could not plausibly be construed by a reasonable trier of fact as a threat to commit a sexual assault on plaintiff; and 2) the court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress as plaintiff failed to establish either extreme or outrageous conduct by defendant or that plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress.

[07/01] Thomas v. Carnival Corp.
In a personal injury action involving a slip and fall aboard Defendant cruise line, the District Court's order granting Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is reversed where, under the parties' agreement, the dispute at issue must have some actual relation to the agreement to arbitrate, irrespective of what ship the claims originated from and when suit was brought.

[06/30] Grammer v. John J. Kane Regional Centers
In a wrongful death action brought under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Amendments, district court judgment finding no right of action under the statutes and dismissing the case is reversed and remanded where it is clear that Congress intended to create individual rights in drafting and adopting the Amendments and plaintiff's mother falls squarely within the zone of interest the provisions are meant to protect. In addition, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 provides the proper avenue for relief for the statutory provisions which plaintiff seeks to enforce, as defendant has failed to demonstrate that Congress foreclosed that option by adopting another, more comprehensive enforcement scheme.

[06/30] Butler v. Gloversville
In a personal injury action claiming that Defendants failed to use a recommended ground cover at a playground they operated, summary judgment for Defendants is reversed where Defendants presented insufficient scientific evidence to show that Plaintiff's injury would have occurred even with the recommended equipment.

[06/30] People v. Coventry First LLC
In an enforcement action by the state claiming that Defendant life settlement providers concealed commissions to brokers, who persuaded their clients to accept Defendants' offers, the denial of Defendants' motion to dismiss or compel arbitration is affirmed where: 1) the state was not bound by arbitration agreements signed by Defendants' clients; and 2) the complaint stated a claim that Defendants knew that the life settlement brokers' conduct constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.

[06/30] Beninati v. Black Rock City, LLC
In a negligence action, trial court judgment is affirmed where the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies to the activity engaged in by plaintiff at the Burning Man Festival, and thus defendant owed him no duty of care to prevent the injuries he incurred as a result.

[06/30] Von der Ruhr v. Immtech Int'l, Inc.
In an action for breach of a licensing contract and tortious interference with contract, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding plaintiff's lay opinion testimony, as the testimony was not grounded in personal knowledge or experience; 2) there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find against co-defendants Thompson, Parks, and Sorkin and impose personal liability on the tortious interference with contract claim.

More...

Commercial Law

[07/01] Arnold's Wines, Inc. v. Boyle
District court order granting defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment is affirmed where sections of the New York Alcoholic Beverage Control Laws banning direct sales to consumers by out-of-state liquor retailers and instituting a three-tier system for the regulation of alcoholic beverages evenhandedly regulate the importation and distribution of liquor within the state and do not discriminate against out-of-state producers in violation of the Commerce Clause, and thus are a valid exercise of the state's rights under the Twenty-first Amendment.

[06/26] TAG/ICIB Services, Inc. v. Sedeco Servicio de Descuento en Compras
District court judgment against defendant for overdue demurrage owed to plaintiff is reversed where: 1) Puerto Rico Commerce Code Article 947's 180-day limitations period applies to plaintiff's claim for overdue demurrage charges on international shipments to Puerto Rico; and 2) the court did not err in failing to apply the laches presumption, as the parties offered scant facts relevant to such an inquiry and the parties consented to judgment based on the stipulation.

[06/26] Keweenaw Bay Indian Comm. v. Rising
In an Indian tribe's action seeking injunctive relief from Michigan's policy of taxing transactions involving the tribe and from Michigan's reliance on an informal refund process to sort those immunities out on a case-by-case basis, judgment for Defendant is reversed, where the questions presented covered a myriad of hypothetical transactions and were too abstract and unsupported by specific facts.

[06/25] Taco John's of Huron, Inc. v. Bix Produce Co., LLC
In a negligence class action involving the provision of contaminated lettuce to restaurant franchises, appeal following district court's Rule 54(b) certification for immediate appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the case does not present sufficient exigency as there is no danger or hardship in allowing it to take its ordinary course.

[06/24] Warfield v. Bestgen
In an action by the receiver of a foundation found to have engaged in fraudulent investment sales to recover commissions paid to the foundation's salespersons, judgment for Plaintiff is affirmed, where the charitable gift annuities sold by Defendants were investment contracts under federal securities law.

[06/24] Reiber v. GMAC, LLC
The Court of Appeals answered a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as follows: The portion of an automobile retail installment sale attributable to a trade-in vehicle's 'negative equity' is a part of the 'purchase money obligation' arising from the purchase of a new car, as defined under New York's Uniform Commercial Code.

[06/23] Los Angeles Unified School District v. Pulgarin
Trial court order order dismissing defendant's claim for loss of goodwill connected to the acquisition by eminent domain of real property is reversed where the court erred in concluding that defendant was not entitled to compensation for goodwill because it was a month-to-month tenant as nothing requires that a business owner's entitlement to goodwill must be based on a written lease on the property that is taken.

More...

Property Law & Real Estate

[07/01] Huber v. Jackson
In a dispute over church property, trial court's grant of summary judgment for the general church and its diocese is affirmed where: 1) under the California Supreme Court's holding in the Episcopal Church Cases, the local parish church holds the property in question in trust for the Episcopal Church and the Los Angeles Diocese, and by disaffiliating from the church defendants and their new parish under another church have no right in the property; 2) the court did not err in rejecting defendant's collateral estoppel argument as the case defendant relies on is distinguishable largely due to the passage of time and there is also now Supreme Court precedent on the matter; and 3) the court did not err in determining that after defendants voted for disaffiliation, their purported amendment of the articles of incorporation and bylaws to make the corporation part of the Anglican Church were a legal nullity, or ultra vires.

[07/01] County of Butte v. Superior Court of Butte County
Petition for writ of mandate to overrule a trial court ruling regarding rights related to possession of medical marijuana is denied where the Constitution and laws of the state provide real party in interest Williams relief at law to bring a civil action based on a violation of his constitutional rights, and seek an adjudication as to whether the deputy had probable cause to order Williams to destroy his property or whether a lack of probable cause led to a violation of his constitutional rights.

[06/30] Buffalo Crushed Stone Inc. v. Cheektowaga
In an action seeking a declaration that town zoning ordinances did not apply to Plaintiff's quarry due to prior nonconforming use, the trial court's order exempting portions of Plaintiff's property from the ordinances is modified where Plaintiff had manifested its intent to mine certain parcels long before the ordinances at issue.

[06/30] City of Irvine v. Southern California Ass'n of Gov'ts
Trial court judgment sustaining demurrer filed by defendant without leave to amend and dismissing the action is affirmed where the court properly found it lacked jurisdiction to review the propriety of plaintiff's regional housing needs assessment allocation as the administrative procedure established under Government Code sect. 65584 to calculate a local government's allocation of the regional housing needs assessment is intended to be the exclusive remedy for the municipality to challenge that determination, and reflect a clear intent to preclude judicial intervention in the process.

[06/29] Goderstad v. American Family Mutal Ins. Co.
In a dispute involving insurance liability coverage, district court judgment is affirmed where defendant has no duty to defend the defendant-seller's as the insurance policy limits coverage to property damage, and the buyers' claim for negligent misrepresentation does not allege property damage caused by an accident.

[06/29] Reliastar Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Home Depot U.S.A, Inc.
In an action involving payments related to a lease and recognition agreement, district court judgment in favor of plaintiff is vacated and remanded where: 1) New York's Uniform Commercial Code does not prohibit defendant from asserting constructive eviction as a defense to plaintiff's claims arising from the lease; 2) the estoppel certificate in the recognition agreement does not bar defendant's constructive eviction defense if defendant was unaware of the faulty condition of the building pad when it executed the parties' recognition agreement and its lack of awareness was reasonable at the time; and 3) if defendant was constructively evicted, the lease was terminated and defendant was relieved of its obligation to pay rent under the "hell or high water" clause of the parties' recognition agreement.

[06/26] Novak v. Capital Mgmt. & Dev. Corp.
In a personal injury action arising out of a nightclub's failure to monitor an alley next to its exit where Plaintiff was attacked, judgment for Plaintiff is affirmed where a reasonable jury could have found that Plaintiff did not voluntarily enter the fray, but rather was swept up in the attack.

More...