News

Case Summaries

Civil Rights

[03/16] Monserrate v. N.Y. State Senate
In an action seeking a preliminary injunction that would have unwound the expulsion of state senator Hiram Monserrate from the New York State Senate, denial of the injunction is affirmed where: 1) assuming that Monserrate's expulsion burdened constitutional rights related to voting and political association, any such burden was justified by the state interest in maintaining the integrity of the Senate; 2) it would be anomalous to rule that the Constitution prohibits a state legislature from exercising, in the regulation of its internal affairs, a latitude comparable to that expressly allowed to Congress; and 3) the availability of adequate process defeated plaintiffs' "stigma-plus" claim.

[03/16] Taravella v. Town of Wolcott
In an action alleging that plaintiff's right to due process was violated when she was fired from municipal employment without a hearing, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is reversed where defendant-mayor's conduct was reasonable as a matter of law because: 1) plaintiff conceded that defendant neither knew nor had reason to know about an alleged oral promise to plaintiff; and 2) plaintiff's employment agreement was ambiguous as a matter of law.

[03/16] Rushing v. Parker
In an action alleging that plaintiff's false arrest violated his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, summary judgment for defendants based on qualified immunity is affirmed where there was no evidence that the arresting officer had reason to believe the perpetrator was anyone other than plaintiff, given the victim's complaint and identification.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[03/15] Qureshi v. US
In plaintiff's appeal from a sua sponte order of the district court requiring him to obtain the court's permission before filing suit in any federal court in the state of Texas, the order is vacated where the district court entered the injunction without giving any prior notice to plaintiff and without offering him any opportunity to oppose the injunction or be heard on its merits.

[03/15] D.C. v. R.R.
In a suit brought by a 15-year-old high student and his parents against other students and their parents, raising a statutory claim under California's hate crime laws and common law claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, trial court's denial of a defendant's anti-SLAPP motion is affirmed as defendant failed to demonstrate that his posted message on plaintiff's website is protected speech and that it was made in connection with a public issue.

[03/15] Kim v. Carter's Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against a children's clothing retailer for damages under Illinois contract and consumer protection law, claiming they were victims of deceptive pricing, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, defendant has fulfilled its obligations under the straightforward, everyday sales contract described in the complaint; and 2) plaintiffs' allegations fail to establish the actual damages element of their Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA) claim.

More...

Insurance Law

[03/16] Pendergest-Holt v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
In an action by various insureds, including R. Allen Stanford, each faced with civil and criminal allegations that they engaged in a massive Ponzi scheme, seeking reimbursement of defense costs under a directors' and officers' liability policy from the policy's underwriters, an injunction prohibiting defendant-insurers from withholding defense funds is affirmed with modifications and remanded, and the underwriters are enjoined from refusing to advance defense costs as provided for in the D&O Policy unless and until a court "determine[s] in fact" by clear and convincing evidence "that the alleged act or alleged acts [of Money Laundering] did in fact occur."

[03/15] Catlin Syndicate Ltd. v. Imperial Palace of Miss., Inc.
In a declaratory judgment action by an insurer seeking a declaration that the policy did not cover certain Hurricane Katrina-related losses, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where the proper method for determining loss under the business-interruption provision was to look at sales before the interruption rather than sales after the interruption.

[03/15] N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.
In an action by a barge operator against an insurer for defense costs associated with Hurricane Katrina-related damages, the district court's order (1) dismissing all causes of action brought against defendant, (2) granting plaintiff the fees and expenses of two of the three law firms it retained to defend Katrina-related actions, and (3) denying plaintiff's motion to transfer and its application for attorneys' fees, is affirmed in part where: 1) the locus of operative facts as well as the interests of efficiency and fairness favored a New York forum; 2) the term "otherwise" in the insurance policy did not include the kind of relationship associated with a shipowner's bailment to a terminal operator, which was at issue in this case; 3) plaintiff did not have a right to pursue independent counsel to defend the Katrina actions whose legal fees would be covered by the primary policy; 4) because summary judgment in favor of defendant was warranted based on the simple non-coverage of the barge under the policy, and because there was no dispute that the primary policy had been exhausted, the excess policy applied to cover expenses in excess of the primary policy's limits. However, the order is vacated in part where coverage for fees earned by both counsel, either as excess to defendant's primary policy or as initial coverage for plaintiff's independent counsel, was intended pursuant to the umbrella coverage provided by the excess policy.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[03/16] Pendergest-Holt v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
In an action by various insureds, including R. Allen Stanford, each faced with civil and criminal allegations that they engaged in a massive Ponzi scheme, seeking reimbursement of defense costs under a directors' and officers' liability policy from the policy's underwriters, an injunction prohibiting defendant-insurers from withholding defense funds is affirmed with modifications and remanded, and the underwriters are enjoined from refusing to advance defense costs as provided for in the D&O Policy unless and until a court "determine[s] in fact" by clear and convincing evidence "that the alleged act or alleged acts [of Money Laundering] did in fact occur."

[03/16] US v. Livesay
In defendant's appeal from the district court's order committing him to the custody of the Attorney General while expressly leaving open the possibility of his release, either conditionally or unconditionally, at a later date, the order is affirmed where the district court was correct when it concluded that it was not statutorily authorized to afford defendant a conditional release, even if it wished to do so.

[03/15] Jones v. Cain
In a murder prosecution, a grant of petitioner's habeas petition is affirmed where the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law by holding that no Sixth Amendment violation occurred when a jury heard recorded testimony from a deceased witness to a murder. However, the portion of the order conditionally dismissing the indictment is vacated where a habeas court can act solely on the body of the prisoner, and thus it ordinarily lacks the power to order the dismissal of an indictment.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[03/16] Alcazar v. Corp. of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle
In an action seeking pay for the overtime hours plaintiff worked as a seminarian in a Catholic church in Washington, dismissal of the action is affirmed where the ministerial exception barred the claim because: 1) the First Amendment strongly circumscribed legislative and judicial intrusion into the internal affairs of a religious organization; 2) awarding damages would necessarily trench on the Church's protected ministerial decisions; and 3) plaintiff's complaint demonstrated that plaintiff was a minister for purposes of the ministerial exception.

[03/16] Braza v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.
In a widow's claim for a survivor annuity as the spouse of a deceased civil service employee, decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board affirming the Office of the Personnel Management's (OPM) denial of the claim is affirmed as the widow waived her right to the spousal annuity by completing and signing a written waiver form, and such written waiver is valid absent fraud, duress, or mental incompetence.

[03/16] Taravella v. Town of Wolcott
In an action alleging that plaintiff's right to due process was violated when she was fired from municipal employment without a hearing, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is reversed where defendant-mayor's conduct was reasonable as a matter of law because: 1) plaintiff conceded that defendant neither knew nor had reason to know about an alleged oral promise to plaintiff; and 2) plaintiff's employment agreement was ambiguous as a matter of law.

More...