News

Case Summaries

Consumer Protection

[11/26] Archer v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp.
In a suit under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and state law, alleging that defendant engaged in discriminatory dealer loans, and misrepresented that plaintiffs were receiving the "best rate" on their car loans, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the claims were brought well outside their respective limitations periods, and no judicially imposed equitable doctrine, such as a discovery rule, saved the claims.

[11/14] H&R Block, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
Class actions filed against nationwide tax preparer H&R Block asserting a variety of statutory and common law claims arising out of H&R's Refund Anticipation Loan (RAL) program are excluded from "prior acts" coverage under professional liability "claims made" insurance policies because other class actions asserting similar claims were filed prior to the policy periods.

[11/13] McKinney v. Cadleway Props., Inc.
In a suit alleging that defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in its efforts to collect upon a debt, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) defendant was a "debt collector" subject to the FDCPA; but 2) the "validation of debt" notice defendant sent to plaintiff was clear on its face, and provided the statutorily-required information.

[11/10] Sherer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC
In a suit involving Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reversed where the arbitration clause in question bound plaintiff to arbitrate his dispute with defendant, even though defendant was not a signatory to the original agreement. (Revised opinion)

[11/10] Sherer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC
In a suit involving Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reversed where the arbitration clause in question bound plaintiff to arbitrate his dispute with defendant, even though defendant was not a signatory to the original agreement.

[11/04] In Re: Sterten
In a bankruptcy proceeding, upon debtor's challenge to the claim of a mortgage corporation, seeking rescission of the loan upon which the claim was based, judgment in favor of creditor is affirmed, where a Truth in Lending Act (TILA) defendant who does not specifically defend on the ground that any inaccuracies in its disclosure fell within the tolerance range provided by TILA does not waive the protection that provision provides.

[10/28] Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
In a class-action suit claiming deceptive advertising by defendant of clothes dryers with stainless-steel drums, certification of a class under the Class Action Fairness Act is reversed where there were no common issues of law or fact to be tried, given that each consumer in the class was likely to have a different understanding of the alleged deception involved in labeling the dryers as having stainless-steel drums.

[10/22] Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.
In a matter concerning a regulation promulgated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which authorized automobile manufacturers to install a lap-only seatbelt at the inboard seating positions of a vehicle, dismissal is affirmed where, under the United States Supreme Court's decision in Geier v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. and its progeny, the claim was preempted because it conflicts with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208.

[10/16] Cundiff v. Verizon California, Inc.
Following judgment in favor of plaintiffs in a class action consumer protection suit against defendant-Verizon California alleging unfair business practices, judgment regarding distribution of undeliverable settlement checks in favor of defendant-Verizon is reversed where: 1) notwithstanding the "claims-made" nature of the settlement, the definition of "unpaid residue" accurately described the unclaimed funds at issue in this case; and 2) court rejected Verizon's assertion the legislative history of section 384 suggests it should be applied only in fluid recovery cases in which a common fund is created.

[10/15] In Re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation
In a suit alleging that a settlement agreement between the patent holder for the antibiotic Cipro and a generic manufacturer violated federal and state antitrust laws, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) there was no Sherman Act violation because any anti-competitive effects caused by the settlement agreements were within the exclusionary zone of the Cipro patent; and 2) state antitrust and consumer-protection claims were properly dismissed as preempted by federal law.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[12/03] Boim v. Holy Land Found. for Relief and Dev.
In a suit arising from the murder of an American in Israel, alleging that defendants, three organizations and one individual, had provided financial support to Hamas, whose gunmen allegedly committed the murder, and that plaintiffs were entitled to recover against defendants under 18 U.S.C. section 2333(a), judgments against all defendants, and award of treble damages, are affirmed in part and reversed in part by the court sitting en banc where: 1) section 2333 does create tort liability for the financial supporters of terrorist groups targeting Americans outside the U.S.; 2) two of the defendant organizations had not contradicted plaintiffs' evidence on the only material fact at issue, namely that Hamas was responsible for the murder, and were properly held liable under section 2333; but 3) with respect to the third defendant organization, collateral estoppel effect could not be given to a prior order freezing defendant's funds, and remand was necessary for a new determination of whether defendant was knowingly supporting terrorism; and 4) the individual defendant had not rendered material support to Hamas subsequent to the passage of a related criminal statute upon which the tort liability was based, and was not subject to liability.

[12/03] Grissom v. Mills Corp.
In an action against former employer for common law breach of contract, common law defamation per se, and violation of the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), judgment awarding plaintiff-former employee $325,484.08 in attorneys' fees and costs following plaintiff's acceptance of defendant's $130,000 offer of judgment is vacated and remanded where: 1) plaintiff was a "prevailing party" with respect to his SOX whistleblower claim and thus was statutorily eligible for award of attorneys' fees and costs under SOX; 2) the district court erred in awarding plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs accrued after the date of its Rule 68 Offer of Judgment; 3) the district court abused its discretion in basing the Fee Award on the hourly rates requested by plaintiff, without reduction; and 4) the district court erred in finding that "[t]he deadlines imposed by the court required Plaintiff's counsel to work at a faster pace..."

[12/02] Brumfield v. Hollins
In a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit brought by survivors of a man who hung himself while being held in a county jail, summary judgment for individual defendants on qualified-immunity grounds, and directed verdict in favor of defendant-county and individual defendants in their official capacity, are affirmed where: 1) defendant-sheriff was not subject to liability on theories of failure to promulgate policies on medical care or failure to supervise; 2) expert medical testimony was reasonably excluded; and 3) defendant-county was not liable as a municipality on either policy or deliberate-indifference theories.

[12/02] Paul v. Landsafe Flood Determination Inc.
In a suit alleging negligence and negligent misrepresentation in an erroneous determination that plaintiffs' home was not located in a flood zone, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where, under Mississippi law, the erroneous flood-zone determination was the kind of professional opinion, developed in the course of a party's business and supplied for the guidance of others in a transaction, on which justifiable and detrimental reliance by a reasonably foreseeable person might be shown to have occurred.

[12/02] Lawrence v. Graubard Miller
In a suit arising from legal proceedings surrounding the administration of an estate, denial of a motion to dismiss a law firm's petition seeking to compel the payment of legal fees is affirmed where the question of whether the retainer agreement at issue was unenforceable on the basis of unconscionability, either at the time it was entered into or in retrospect, was a factual one that could not be answered at the pre-answer motion stage.

[12/02] Kopsachilis v. 130 East 18 Owners Corp.
In a negligence action alleging that the owners of an apartment building failed to light a stairwell during a blackout, denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment is reversed where the statutory requirement that lights in fire-stairs be kept burning continuously was not a strict-liability offense, and defendants could assert a "knowledge and consent" defense contained within the statute.

[12/02] Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc.
In an action brought by plaintiff-home builder against defendant-manufacturer for damage caused by plumbing fittings manufactured by defendant, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) a builder may recover from a product manufacturer for economic losses caused by the manufacturer's violation of the standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act through an equitable indemnity action; but 2) a builder may not recover for these losses through a direct negligence claim against the manufacturer.

[12/02] Java Oil Ltd. v. Sullivan
In a case brought by plaintiff-corporation pursuant to the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (UFMJRA) against attorney who represented client in a personal injury claim, judgment against attorney is affirmed over claims of error that the attorney fee awards entered by a court in Gibraltar: 1) constituted a penalty; 2) violated state public policy; and 3) should not have been recognized.

[11/26] Archer v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp.
In a suit under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and state law, alleging that defendant engaged in discriminatory dealer loans, and misrepresented that plaintiffs were receiving the "best rate" on their car loans, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the claims were brought well outside their respective limitations periods, and no judicially imposed equitable doctrine, such as a discovery rule, saved the claims.

[11/25] Tebo v. Tebo
In a suit alleging a civil conspiracy to have plaintiff involuntarily committed for mental treatment, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not produce evidence to show a agreement between the private and public defendants; 2) there was no factual dispute on the elements of a malicious-prosecution claim; 3) there was no basis for a per se negligence action against defendants-stepsons; 4) no material facts were in dispute as to whether defendants-doctors deprived plaintiff of due-process rights; 5) intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution claims against defendants-doctors were not supported by evidence; and 6) defendants-doctors were entitled to immunity on negligence claims.

More...