Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[09/05] Sindecuse v. Katsaros
In a case alleging common law fraud surrounding a stock purchase, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the allegedly fraudulent statements could not support claims of fraud because they were: 1) predictions of the future; and 2) a promise of future action not accompanied by a present intent not to perform.

[09/04] Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Lockyer
After remand, in a case interpreting California's Financial Information Privacy Act (FIPA) in light of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a ruling that the FRCA entirely preempted FIPA section 4053(b)(1), which restricts the sharing of nonpublic consumer personal information between financial institutions and their affiliates, is reversed and remanded where the preempted portions of FIPA are severable, narrowing FIPA section 4053(b)(1) to exclude consumer report information as defined by the FCRA.

[09/03] STL 300 N.4th v. Value St. Louis Assocs.
In a real estate contract case, grant of summary and declaratory judgments are reversed and remanded where the disputed term within a lease was unambiguous and the lease did not call for a binding resolution of appraisal disputes.

[09/03] Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm
In a suit over violations of a franchise agreement, judgment of contempt for failure to comply with a preliminary injunction to make available to plaintiff certain items, including patient files, is affirmed where: 1) defendant was given an opportunity to purge the contempt through compliance; 2) defendant waived his arguments that the sanction was excessive and unrelated to plaintiff's damages; and 3) defendant was given sufficient leniency as a pro se litigant.

[09/03] Extra Equipamentos e Exportacao Ltda. v. Case Corp.
In a commercial fraud case alleging that defendant induced plaintiff to sign a release of its claims in litigation by promising to retain plaintiff as a distributor of its products, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed and awards of costs affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) a no-reliance clause in the release was enforceable to prevent plaintiff from recovering for fraud; and 2) the language of 28 U.S.C. section 1920(6) authorizing awards for "compensation of interpreters" does not authorize the awarding of fees for translation of written documents.

[09/03] Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn v. Landstar Sys.
In a class action lawsuit brought against defendant motor carrier alleging that freight hauling leases violated the Truth-in-Leasing regulations for failing to disclose that banking fee charges would be deducted from compensation paid to the truck owners and drivers, partial summary judgment and award of damages in favor of defendant is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) district court erred in finding that defendant was not required to disclose banking fee charge and document charge-back items; 2) district court erred in granting an injunction sealing the pricing information provided to defendant company; 3) district court correctly ruled that section 276.12(h) requires defendant to provide documentation related to charge-back items but erred in concluding that defendant met the requirement; and 4)district court did not abuse its discretion in decertifying the class for actual damages.

[08/29] Forest Oil Corp. v. McAllen
In a suit over a commercial contract, denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reversed and remanded where: 1) courts must examine the contract itself and the totality of the surrounding circumstances when determining if a waiver-of-reliance provision is binding; and 2) an unambiguous waiver-of-reliance provision precludes a fraudulent-inducement claim as a matter of law.

[08/29] 800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Sec., Ltd.
In a patent suit over technology for routing toll-free telephone calls to appropriate service locations, judgments of infringement, invalidity, and tortious interference are affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) an error of claim construction permitted the jury to make incorrect findings that defendant had infringed plaintiff's patents; 2) unasserted claims of defendant's patents could not be judged invalid; 3) defendant was entitled to a new trial on the validity of two of its asserted claims; and 4) a tortious-interference claim was preempted by federal law in the absence of a showing of bad faith on the part of defendant.

[08/29] Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Levy
Judgment finding defendant liable for multiple acts of solicitation fraud and imposing sanctions against him is affirmed over claims that the court erred in: 1) multiplying the maximum civil monetary penalty for which defendant was liable by the number of "violations" proved at trial, rather than by the number of "counts" alleged in the complaint; 2)imposing a $600,000 civil monetary penalty against defendant; 3) awarding restitution to the extent of defendant's customers' losses; 4) including in the restitution award $30,000 invested by his customers prior to their interactions with defendant; and 5) freezing his assets pending satisfaction of the judgment. The matter is remanded as to district court's award of restitution based on the amount of the victims' losses rather than on defendant's ill-gotten gains.

[08/27] Gander Mountain Co. v. Cabela's, Inc.
In a case arising from a contract dispute involving a 1996 transaction between the parties, summary judgment for plaintiff on a counterclaim, finding that a provision at issue was unenforceable because it was merely an agreement to agree, is affirmed over claims that the district court violated the law-of-the-case doctrine and erred in granting summary judgment.

More...

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[09/05] Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C & W Enters.
In a construction contract dispute involving a federally recognized Native American tribe, an order enjoining a South Dakota state court from confirming an arbitration award against the Oglala Sioux Tribe for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is vacated and remanded where: 1) three of the four contracts subject of the arbitration contained explicit waivers of the tribe's sovereign immunity; and 2) the tribe waived sovereign immunity as to the fourth contract by agreeing to include it in the same arbitration.

[09/02] Exelon Generation Co., LLC v. Local 15, Intl. Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that disputes over plaintiff's changes to medical benefits for retirees were not within the scope of the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA) or arbitrable under the grievance procedure, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the arbitration clause in the CBA applied to retirees as well as current employees; and 2) defendant-union could arbitrate on behalf of its retirees who consented to its representation.

[09/02] Adams v. Monumental Gen. Cas., Co.
In a lawsuit filed by plaintiff-insured truck owner against defendant-insurer for a refund of portion of her premium because she paid the loan early, appeal of grant of motion to compel arbitration is dismissed where: 1) court has no jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court compelled arbitration; and 2) when a district court compels arbitration of a dispute under one contract and is silent about whether another contract provides for arbitration of the same dispute, section 16(a)(1)(B) is not implicated.

[08/29] Forest Oil Corp. v. McAllen
In a suit over a commercial contract, denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reversed and remanded where: 1) courts must examine the contract itself and the totality of the surrounding circumstances when determining if a waiver-of-reliance provision is binding; and 2) an unambiguous waiver-of-reliance provision precludes a fraudulent-inducement claim as a matter of law.

[08/29] In Re: Poly-America, L.P.
In a retaliatory-discharge case in which plaintiff challenged the grant of defendant's motion to compel arbitration, petition for writ of mandamus is conditionally granted where: 1) provisions of the arbitration agreement prohibiting punitive damages or reinstatement undermined the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act and were void as unconscionable; 2) provisions requiring splitting of arbitration fees between employer and employee and placing limits on discovery were not unconscionable; and 3) the unconscionable provisions of the agreement were severable and the agreement was otherwise enforceable.

[08/29] Envtl. Barrier Co., LLC v. Slurry Sys., Inc.
In a construction contract dispute, judgment confirming an arbitrator's award in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the arbitrator was empowered to address the question of whether plaintiff had standing to invoke the arbitration clause; 2) defendant waived its objection to the arbitrator's determination that the dispute was arbitrable; 3) the arbitrator based his award on the contract and did not exceed his powers; and 4) a motion for reconsideration was properly denied.

[08/28] Morales v. Sun Constructors, Inc.
In a wrongful-termination suit, denial of defendant-employer's motion to stay is reversed and remanded for entry of a stay pending arbitration where plaintiff-employee's inability to read in English the employment agreement he signed, which bound him to arbitration of his complaints, did not release him from being bound by it.

[08/28] Duthie v. Matria Healthcare, Inc.
In a suit arising out of alleged fraud by officers of a corporation acquired by defendant, a preliminary injunction preventing defendant from proceeding with an arbitration hearing on the fraud claims is affirmed where the merger agreement between the two companies did not mandate arbitration of the types of claims defendant asserted against plaintiffs.

[08/25] Cable Connection, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc.
Under the California Arbitration Act, judicial review of the merits of an arbitration award is permissible where the contracting parties have expressly agreed that the arbitrators shall have no power to commit errors of law and that the award may be vacated or corrected on appeal for legal error.

[08/22] JPD, Inc. v. Chronimed Holdings, Inc.
In a contract dispute involving whether plaintiff was due additional payment from defendant based on a pharmacy's earnings, or lack thereof, denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration is reversed, where: 1) the district court erred in holding that defendant waived that its contractual arbitration right through its prelitigation conduct; and 2) plaintiff's claims fell within the scope of the contract's arbitration clause.

More...

Property Law & Real Estate

[09/05] Mission Shores Ass'n v. Pheil
Grant of petition which reduced the percentage of affirmative votes required to amend the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR) is affirmed over claims that the trial court erred in finding that: 1) the amendment was reasonable; 2) the balloting conformed to the CCR; and 3) there was no impairment to the security interest of mortgages.

[09/05] Miner v. Clinton County
In cases alleging violations of due process and equal protection stemming from defendant county's foreclosure of plaintiffs' properties as a result of unpaid property taxes, grant of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) due process does not require actual notice of foreclosure; 2) defendants' actions were reasonably calculated under the circumstances to provide notice of foreclosure; 3) plaintiffs were not entitled to additional notice of default judgment where the previous notice of foreclosure met the requirements of due process; 4) defendants did not violate plaintiffs' rights to due process and equal protection of the laws by refusing to accept redemption after default judgment was entered or refusing to grant plaintiffs a share in the surplus from a tax sale; and 5) there is no merit in plaintiffs' claim that reasonable restrictions on the method of payment of long overdue taxes, such as requiring payment by cash, money order, or certified check, violate due process.

[09/04] Kingman Reef v. US
In an action to quiet title, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) the Quiet Title Act's statute of limitations had run in the more than twelve years since plaintiff's predecessor in interest knew or should have known of the government's claim to possession of the land; and 2) the government did not clearly and unequivocally abandon its interest.

[09/04] Burkhart v. Coleman
In an action to quiet title, rulings that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt California protection of bona fide purchasers and that unauthorized post-bankruptcy sale of real property causes title to rest with the purchaser, not the bankruptcy estate, are affirmed where: 1) the bankruptcy estate failed to record title in the property; and 2) a bona fide purchaser bought and recorded title in the property.

[09/04] Schaffter v. Creative Capital Leasing Group
In a contract claim related to a real estate transaction, judgment in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the court erred by finding defendant defaulted under various agreements with third parties to purchase condominiums, thereby triggering its responsibility under a Buyer Broker Compensation Contract to pay it commissions; 2) there was no default because the developers pursued no damages against defendant and opted to cancel the agreements; 3) the Buyer Broker Contract and identical contract with plaintiff's assignor are void because they did not contain a date certain for their termination; and 4) assignment of rights to commissions is void because it was made prematurely.

[09/04] Metro Hydroelectric Co., LLC v. Metro Parks
In dispute regarding property rights to an area of land related to an easement, grant of a preliminary injunction to plaintiff is reversed where: 1) there is no case, regulation or statute that provides any indication that a preliminary permit grants the permit holder any right to enter private property to conduct Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) studies; 2) to the contrary, all indications from the relevant statutes and regulations point to the opposite conclusion; and thus 3)there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction.

[08/29] Trammell Crow Cent. Tex., Ltd. v. Gutierrez
In a negligence suit alleging that the property manager of a shopping mall failed to provide adequate security, resulting in a criminal attack in which the victim was killed, affirmation of judgment in favor of plaintiffs is reversed where the criminal attack was not foreseeable, and defendants had no duty to protect invitees on their property from third-party criminal acts.

[08/29] Kerlin v. Sauceda
In a suit alleging that defendant defrauded plaintiffs of oil and gas royalties and other interests in Padre Island, judgments for plaintiffs are reversed as time-barred where: 1) plaintiffs could have discovered defendant's wrongdoing through reasonable diligence and were not entitled to tolling of the running of limitations on that basis; and 2) defendant was present in the state, by virtue of doing business there, during all of the alleged wrongdoing, and statutory tolling therefore did not apply.

[08/29] Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust
In a mineral-rights suit in which plaintiffs claimed breach of implied covenants to develop a specified tract of land and to prevent drainage, judgments for plaintiffs are reversed, damages for trespass and breach of covenants vacated, and cause remanded for a new trial, where: 1) under the rule of capture, subsurface hydraulic fracturing of a natural gas well that extends into another's property is not a trespass for which the value of gas drained as a result may be recovered as damages; 2) mineral lessors with a reversionary interest have standing to bring an action for subsurface trespass causing actual injury; 3) the measure of damages for breach of the implied covenant to protect against drainage is the value of the minerals lost because of the lessee's failure to act with reasonable prudence; 4) some evidence supported the jury's finding of breach of the implied covenant to develop, and whether lessors' repudiation of the lease was a defense was, on this record, a matter of law; 5) some evidence supported the jury's finding of bad faith pooling; 6) admission into evidence of a memorandum containing a racial slur was reversible error; and 7) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to abate this case for two related cases.

[08/27] Byrd v. Dressel
In an action brought by a group of homeowners and community organizations seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a city, employees, and developers who remodel and convert private homes into student residences, a judgment against plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) case precedent does not categorically preclude due process challenges to impermissible governmental action that deprives a person of real property; 2) however, under ordinary Due Process Clause jurisprudence, plaintiff failed to state a claim, notwithstanding its understandable concerns about the aesthetics and ambiance of the neighborhood; and 3) claims under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and defendant-city's municipal code also failed.

More...

Landlord Tenant

[09/03] Ritchey v. City of Independence
In an employment action under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. section 1983, summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant presented independently verifiable evidence of a good faith non-retaliatory reason for plaintiff's discharge; and 2) plaintiff's claims were tied to no provision of the Constitution.

[08/27] 216 Jamaica Ave., LLC v. S & R Playhouse Realty Co.
In a case involving the enforceability of a "gold clause" contained in a 1912 lease agreement, which required payment of rents to be in gold coins, a judgment against plaintiff-owner who tried to enforce the clause is reversed and remanded where: 1) contrary to the ruling below, the clause is enforceable; and 2) a remand was necessary for the district court to interpret the clause, to determine the obligation it imposes on the lessee, and to address any other defenses in the first instance, including lessee's estoppel-by-deed and waiver defenses.

[07/24] MAC East, LLC, v. Shoney's, Inc.
In a diversity case involving a commercial real estate lease and a proposal by an assignee of that lease to sublease the real estate to a third party, grant of summary judgment for plaintiff-corporation as to liability on its tortious interference claim is reversed where: 1) defendant corporation was an "essential entity to the purported injured relations"; 2) both plaintiff and defendant were parties to the Assignment Agreement, and thus were "parties to a comprehensive interwoven set of contract or relations"; and 3) defendant cannot be a stranger to the sublease when consummation of the sublease would leave it obligated on the covenants on the ground lease, effectively forming a business relationship between it and proposed subleasee. A question regarding whether a commercial reasonableness standard tempers defendant's "sole discretion" to withhold consent to a proposed sublease is certified to the state supreme court.

[07/18] Cascade Crossing II, LLC v. Radioshack Corp.
In a suit for declaratory judgment, back rent, and attorneys' fees and costs, a ruling that plaintiff's attorneys' fees were not capped since O.C.G.A. section 13-1-11 did not apply is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) the Georgia Supreme Court answered a certified question affirming that section 13-1-11 applies to, and limits, the award of attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) an award for full attorneys' fees and costs as provided for in the lease agreement was precluded.

[07/17] Kassir v. Zahabi
In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land, judgment for plaintiff ordering defendant to pay for rents accruing during the time defendant was able to perform but refused to do so is affirmed where: 1) the court has power to award compensation incidental to a decree for specific performance, when necessary to relate the performance back to the date set in the contract; and 2) the court did not err in refusing to offset the rents with the interest defendant would have earned on the purchase price had it been timely paid, since there was no surplus equity after satisfaction of the liens.

[07/16] Grant v. Ratliff
In a claim for a prescriptive easement over defendant's land, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) there is no presumption that the open, notorious and continuous use of another's land is adverse to the owner; 2) the facts did not support the elements of adverse possession since the allegedly adverse use was for the accommodation of family members.

[07/10] Pro-Art Dental Lab, Inc. v. V-Strategic Group, LLC
In a certified conflict between two district courts of appeal involves the interaction of summary proceedings under chapter 51, Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(c), the Florida Supreme Court rules that: 1) a county court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over ejection claims; 2) the summary procedure of chapter 51 does not apply to an ejectment action; and 3) a county court may not sua sponte amend a plaintiff's complaint to vest itself with jurisdiction and to rationalize the application of chapter 51 summary proceedings.

[07/10] Bloch v. Frischholz
In a suit brought under the Fair Housing Act involving a condominium owner's association board's rule prohibiting affixing signs on doors and in hallways, which resulted in the removal of plaintiffs' mezuzah, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the rule was neutral as to religion; 2) an injunction would not provide relief since local law denies a residential building authority to prevent an owner or lessee from affixing religious material to the entrance of a housing unit; and 3) the court refused to create a religious accommodation requirement under the FHA.

[06/03] Baychester Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Bd.
San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board's decision finding plaintiff-shopping center liable for rent overpayments charged to a tenant is affirmed over a claim that plaintiff could not be held liable for unlawful rent increases imposed by a former landlord.

[05/06] In the Matter of IG Second Generation Partners L.P. v. New York State Div. of Hous. and Cmty. Renewal
In an appeal addressing whether the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) had the authority to cancel rent arrears owed by a rent-stabilized tenant as a result of DHCR's resolution of an unusually protracted fair market rent appeal, the court of appeals rules that DHCR did not have the authority under the circumstances of this case.

More...