Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[09/01] Hollander v. Copacabana Nightclub
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought against several New York City nightclubs for discriminating against men on “Ladies’ Nights," dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the nightclubs were not state actors and thus were not subject to section 1983.

[08/31] Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp.
In an action seeking to attach defendant's property in New York as pre-judgment security for a pending arbitration in Hong Kong, dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court did not err in declining to fashion an equitable remedy in circumstances where it was clear that the original attachment order could not be sustained in light of Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009).

[08/30] Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiff's patent infringement suit related to two types of digital storage devices, recordable discs (CD-Rs) and rewritable compact discs (CD-RWs), claiming that defendant was violating section 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing CD-Rs and CD-RWs that infringed its patents, the International Trade Commission's decision that the doctrine of patent misuse does not bar intervenor-U.S. Philips Corporation from enforcing its patent rights against defendant is affirmed as, even if Phillips and Sony engaged in an agreement not to license the patent at issue for non-Orange-Book purposes, that hypothesized agreement had no bearing on the physical or temporal scope of the patents in suit, nor did it have anti-competitive effects in the relevant market. Therefore, the asserted agreement between Phillips and Sony did not constitute misuse and cannot justify rendering all of Phillips' Orange Book patents unenforceable.

[08/30] Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Chimet, S.P.A.
In Delta Airlines' suit for declaratory judgment seeking to limit its liability for losing approximately 100 kilograms of pure platinum shipped from Italy to Pennsylvania, district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is affirmed as the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant's motion to dismiss as the private interest factors affecting the convenience of the litigants and the public interest factors affecting the convenience of the forum weighed in favor of litigating this dispute in Italy.

[08/26] Bankston v. Then

[08/25] DPC Indus., Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
In an action seeking additional insurance coverage against a liability insurer, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) nothing in the policy or an additional endorsement required that an insured property be actually owned or operated by the specific entity seeking coverage related to that facility; and 2) the record contained uncontradicted evidence that defendant provided indemnity coverage to plaintiff.

[08/25] Advanced Body Care Solutions, LLC v. Thione Int'l., Inc.
In an action arising out of a contract that required a company to make minimum purchases of products in exchange for an exclusive license to market and distribute them, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant's shipment of the defective ampoules breached the entire Licensing Agreement; 2) because the Licensing Agreement did not clearly express that the listed remedies were the exclusive remedies available to defendant, regardless of what the parties' intentions may have been, the Agreement did not effectively limit defendant's remedies; and 3) the jury's verdict, which did not exceed the amount of defendant's expert's calculations, was neither against the great weight of the evidence nor excessive.

[08/25] Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. St. Paul
In a First Amendment action against the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, after the St. Paul City Council enacted an ordinance prohibiting all billboard extensions, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where a refusal to remand in this situation simply retained the status quo and allowed the City to begin its legislative process anew.

[08/24] Rexam Beverage Can Co. v. Bolger
In a commercial landlord-tenant dispute involving at a warehouse with a leaky roof, the replacement of which both landlord and tenant denied was their responsibility, judgment in favor of defendant-landlord on his counterclaim on several Illinois state law grounds is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) a conclusion that tenant was contractually bound to replace the roof of the warehouse is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded; 2) district court's award of $405,470 in damages for tenant's failure to replace the roof is affirmed; and 3) district court's Holdover Statute award of $1,156,232.24 is vacated and remanded for a determination of the fair market net rental value of the property and the assessment of a penalty equal to double that value for the duration of the tenant's holdover.

[08/24] Curtis Lumber Co. v. Louisiana Pac. Corp.
In an action by a retail supplier of building materials regarding defendant's alleged failure to follow through on defendant's rebate promotion that plaintiff promoted to many of its customers, partial summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where the testimony offered by plaintiff fell short of the elevated burden for proving fraud by circumstantial evidence. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff alleged distinct injuries that would not have occurred had defendant paid rebates owed to plaintiff's customers; and 2) there was a question of material fact as to whether defendant's rebate documents misrepresented or omitted a material term of the rebate promotion.

[08/23] Regal Fin. Co. v. Tex Star Motors, Inc.
In a secured creditor's suit for deficiency against a used-car dealer, the court of appeals' order setting aside the jury verdict in favor of the secured creditor in finding no evidence of commercial reasonableness is reversed and remanded where: 1) the jury charge did not alter the standard for commercial reasonableness under Article 9, as the court of appeals erred in reading the jury instruction on commercial reasonableness to require evidence of a reasonable dealer standard; and 2) evidence of commercial reasonableness here is legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict.

More...

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[08/31] Cent. States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. O'Neil Bros. Transfer & Storage Co.
In a multi-employer pension fund administrator's suit against an employer seeking interim payment of withdrawal liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, district court's grant of summary judgment for administrator is affirmed as defendant's default is governed by the provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 1399(c)(5)(B), and under that section, as interpreted reasonably by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the entire amount of the withdrawal payment is immediately payable upon default and that obligation is not deferred because of the pendency of arbitration.

[08/31] Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy v. Universal Paragon Corp.
In defendant's suit against a law firm, claiming that an arbitrator's award of $7,554,149.13 in attorney fees and expenses for the law firm, related to its representation of defendant in an underlying complex environmental litigation, is unconscionable and violates public policy, superior court's affirmance of the award is affirmed as, assuming that defendant's claim of unconscionability is subject to judicial review as a predicate for determining whether the arbitration award violates public policy, the claim is rejected on the merits as neither the fee agreement nor the award actually issued by the arbitrator is unconscionable under rule 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

[08/30] Next Step Med. Co., Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson Int'l

[08/30] Critzer v. Enos
In plaintiffs' suit against a homeowners association (HOA), and a property owner and its successor in interest, involving a dispute concerning a window installed in defendant-property owner's upstairs bathroom, trial court's order enforcing the parties' settlement is reversed where: 1) the order enforcing the settlement finally determined the rights of the parties, and therefore, the order is amended to include an appealable judgment; and 2) because there was neither an oral settlement all parties personally agreed upon, nor a written settlement signed by all of the parties, the court lacked authority under the summary procedure of section 664.6 to enforce any settlement.

[08/26] Bank of Am., N.A. v. UMB Fin. Servs., Inc.
In an appeal from a series of orders in which the district court declined to compel plaintiff to submit to arbitration and declined to stay litigation pending the outcome of such arbitration, the orders are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff never signed an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and the document plaintiff did sign, the employment agreement, did not incorporate the arbitration clause of the FINRA contracts by reference or otherwise; and 2) the court need not reach the question of waiver since the district court properly determined there was no existing right to arbitration in this case.

[08/25] Teamsters Local Union No. 89 v. Kroger Co.
In a union's suit against an employer to compel arbitration for violating the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by subcontracting out operations to third parties employing non-union members, a grant of union's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) neither defendant's subcontracting nor the parties' execution of the Letter of Understanding demonstrates an intent to exclude union's subcontracting grievances from arbitration under the agreement; and 2) defendant has failed to rebut the presumption in favor of arbitrability and the district court correctly compelled arbitration.

[08/23] Ruiz v. Podolsky
In a medical malpractice and wrongful death suit brought by decedent's wife and children against an orthopedic surgeon and other health care providers, judgment of the court of appeal is reversed and remanded as, in accordance with the intent of the Legislature that enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 1295 and related statutes, all wrongful death claimants are bound by arbitration agreements entered into pursuant to section 1295, at least when, as here, the language of the agreement manifests an intent to bind these claimants.

[08/19] Radford v. Shehorn
In defendant's motion to enforce a settlement agreement against the plaintiff, arising from plaintiff's petition in probate court challenging the defendant's distribution of trust assets established by their parents, trial court's conclusion that the first page of the two-page settlement was part of the agreement in granting the motion to enforce the settlement is affirmed as, although the trial court erred in admitting the mediator's declaration into evidence, the error was harmless as there is no reasonable probability that plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of the error in admitting the mediator's declaration.

[08/17] Greenwood Corp. v. CompuCredit Corp.
The order of the district court denying certain credit providers' motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that the arbitration agreement was void because the Credit Repair Organization Act (CROA) specifically prohibited provisions disallowing any waiver of a consumer's right to sue in court for CROA violations.

[08/13] Johnson v. Gruma Corp.
In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of defendant, the order is affirmed where: 1) the arbitrator correctly read the arbitration clause to mean that the parties intended to be governed by the California Arbitration Act; and 2) the arbitrator did not violate California disclosure rules, and did not exceed his powers.

[08/13] Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports LLC
In plaintiff's suit for injunctive relief, restitution, rescission, and damages both on her own behalf and as a class action lawsuit against an automobile dealer, claiming several causes of action including violation of the California Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), trial court's denial of defendant's petition to compel arbitration is affirmed as the CLRA is not preempted by the FAA, and the arbitration clause at issue here required plaintiff to waive an unwaivable statutory right under the CLRA to bring a classwide arbitration or class action lawsuit, which violates the public policy, underlying these rights.

More...

Property Law & Real Estate

[09/02] Bakalar v. Vavra
In an action seeking a declaration that plaintiff was the owner of a drawing by Egon Schiele, judgment for plaintiff is vacated where: 1) although it is unclear whether a cause of action comparable to the counterclaims of defendants could be successfully brought in Austria, allowing the claims to go forward under New York law was consistent with the principles underlying the decision of the Supreme Court of Austria; and 2) the district judge, by applying Swiss Law, erred in placing the burden of proof on defendants to show that the Nazis looted the drawing.

[09/01] Gallagher v. Magner
In consolidated actions by several owners and former owners of rental properties in St. Paul, Minnesota, challenging the City of St. Paul's enforcement of its housing code, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiffs did not assert a claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework; 2) plaintiffs were not exercising a right under the Fair Housing Act by leasing to racial minorities; and 3) plaintiffs failed to reference a particular section of the St. Paul Code, let alone analyze why that section was vague. However, the order is reversed in part where the city's aggressive enforcement of the Housing Code resulted in a disproportionate adverse effect on racial minorities, particularly African-Americans.

[08/31] Wickens v. Shell Oil Co.
In plaintiffs' suit against Shell Oil under Indiana's Underground Storage Tank Act, claiming that Shell Oil was liable for the contamination on a plot of land where plaintiffs' shoe store was located, district court's grant of most of the plaintiffs' requests for corrective actions costs and attorney's fees is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) without a better showing from the plaintiffs' attorney, the court will assume that the district court did its job properly when it decided to award $37,443.25 in litigation costs and disbursements; 2) there is no error in ordering Shell to pay for the corrective action costs incurred in May and June 2007; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the attorney's request for prejudgment interest; 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shell's Rule 60(b) motion; and 5) district court's judgment is reversed and remanded insofar as it miscalculated when it deducted the attorney's wife's fees from the attorneys' fees award.

[08/31] Pac. Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates LLC. v. City of Los Angeles
In a developer's suit against the City of Los Angeles for rejecting as incomplete an application for conversion of its mobilehome park because the application failed to include an application for clearance under the Mello Act and an application for a coastal development permit under the Coastal Act, trial court's entry of judgment directing issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the city to deem plaintiff's application complete is reversed and vacated as, in light of the paramount concern for protecting coastal resources by regulating development as expressed in the Coastal Act, section 66427.5 does not preclude the city from imposing conditions and requirements mandated by the Mello Act and Coastal Act on a subdivider seeking to convert to resident ownership a mobilehome park located in the coastal zone.

[08/31] Colony Cove Properties, LLC. v. City of Carson
In a mobilehome park owner's challenge to a city ordinance specifying conditions permitting conversion of a mobilehome park from landlord ownership to resident ownership, trial court's conclusion that the city's responsibilities when faced with a mobilehome park conversion application were essentially ministerial, in issuing a writ directing the city to vacate the ordinance in its entirety and to vacate an ordinance imposing a moratorium on mobilehome park conversions while the city studied the issue is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) trial court's conclusion that the city's role under section 66427.5 is purely ministerial is incorrect; 2) the ordinance at issue conflicted with section 66427.5 and is therefore invalid; and 3) the issue of the validity of the moratorium was moot at the time the writ was granted.

[08/31] Roberts v. Doyle
An order of the Second Circuit enjoining the Secretary of State from placing Amendment 3 on the November 2010 general election ballot is affirmed where: 1) the ballot title and summary are confusing to the average voter as the lack of an effective date renders it impossible for a voter to know which homeowners would qualify for the exemption; 2) the ballot title and summary fail to mention that a married person could fail to qualify for the exemption because his or her spouse previously owned a residence; and 3) a voter reading the title and summary could easily conclude that in order to be eligible for the additional homestead, a property owner would have to meet two conditions.

[08/30] Vill. Northridge Homeowners Ass'n v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
In homeowners association's suit against an insurance company, claiming that the insurer fraudulently induced it to settle a Northridge earthquake-related claim for less than it was worth under the policy, judgment of the court of appeals is reversed as a release of a disputed claim does not permit a party to elect the remedy of a suit for damages when the release itself bars that option. Instead, the insured party to the release must follow the rules governing rescission of the release before suing the insurer for damages.

[08/30] Critzer v. Enos
In plaintiffs' suit against a homeowners association (HOA), and a property owner and its successor in interest, involving a dispute concerning a window installed in defendant-property owner's upstairs bathroom, trial court's order enforcing the parties' settlement is reversed where: 1) the order enforcing the settlement finally determined the rights of the parties, and therefore, the order is amended to include an appealable judgment; and 2) because there was neither an oral settlement all parties personally agreed upon, nor a written settlement signed by all of the parties, the court lacked authority under the summary procedure of section 664.6 to enforce any settlement.

[08/27] State of Texas v. Brownlow
In property owners' suit against the state for inverse condemnation for removing dirt from their property after obtaining an easement to construct a mitigation pond on the property to collect water that would result from a highway expansion project, the court of appeals' reversal of trial court's dismissal of the suit is affirmed as the easement did not grant the state the right to use the excavated dirt for highway construction, plaintiffs' suit states a takings claim under the Texas Constitution, and the state does not have sovereign immunity from the suit.

[08/27] SKS & Assoc., Inc. v. Dart
In plaintiff-residential rental property owner's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a judge and a sheriff, claiming that the judge's general order directing the sheriff not to carry out residential evictions during particular winter weeks violated its federal constitutional rights, district court's dismissal of the suit is affirmed where: 1) based on the same principles of equity, comity, and federalism that are the foundation of Younger abstention, abstention is required in this case; and 2) to the extent that delays in state court processes adversely affect plaintiff, it can and must seek remedies through the state courts themselves.

[08/25] DPC Indus., Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
In an action seeking additional insurance coverage against a liability insurer, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) nothing in the policy or an additional endorsement required that an insured property be actually owned or operated by the specific entity seeking coverage related to that facility; and 2) the record contained uncontradicted evidence that defendant provided indemnity coverage to plaintiff.

More...

Landlord Tenant

More...