Findlaw News

Case Summaries

Class Actions

[08/25] Fireside Bank Cases
In coordinated class actions challenging a lender's collection practices, trial court's entry of dismissals with prejudice against all class members against whom the lender had previously secured judgments in separate collection actions is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' contention that the trial court was empowered by the UCL to grant class-wide relief to judgment debtors without a factual showing of grounds to avoid the judgments against them is rejected, and, since no other basis for relief on their behalf was ever suggested, the court did not err by concluding that the UCL afforded no basis for the class-wide affirmative relief sought in this class action; and 2) the appeal is dismissed as moot insofar as it is taken from orders denying leave to intervene and refusing to certify a subclass consisting of judgment debtors.

[08/24] Holster v. Gatco, Inc.
In a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) to the extent that the Second Circuit's prior holding was based on treating the TCPA "as if it were a state law," Shady Grove's holding that Rule 23 generally preempts C.P.L.R. 901(b) abrogated the court's holding; and 2) the TCPA constituted a delegation by Congress to the states of considerable power to determine which causes of action lie under the TCPA.

[08/23] Gutierrez v. California Commerce Club, Inc.
In plaintiffs' putative class action lawsuit against California Commerce Club, Inc. (Club), claiming that they and other similarly situated members of the class were injured by defendant's unlawful policy and practice of denying meal and rest breaks to certain hourly, non-union employees, trial court's order sustaining defendant's demurrer without leave to amend is reversed as it was premature for the trial court to make determinations pertaining to class suitability on demurrer as plaintiffs' allegations of the operative complaint were sufficient to move the action beyond the pleading stage.

[08/20] Schleicher v. Wendt
In a securities-fraud suit against some managers of a large, publicly traded financial-services holding company, district court's conclusion that investors can use the fraud-on-the-market doctrine as a replacement for person-specific proof of reliance and causation in granting the class certification is affirmed as, the district court assured itself that the market for the company's stock was thick enough to transmit defendants' statements to investors by way of the price, and as such, the district court did not commit a legal error, or abuse of discretion, in deciding that the fraud-on-the-market doctrine should not be conscripted to serve some other function.

Read More

Ethics & Professional Responsibility

[08/31] Wolfe v. Schaefer
In an attorney's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against the State Attorney and others, arising from his failed 2008 bid for State's Attorney of Cumberland County, Illinois, claiming that defendants violated the Fourth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by publicly disclosing that plaintiff was under investigation by Illinois state agencies for possible violations of legal ethics, tax law, and unemployment-insurance law, district court's dismissal of the suit is affirmed as the fact that a candidate for public office is under investigation for legal and ethical violations is a matter of substantial public interest.

[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.

[08/27] In re Columbia Valley Healthcare Sys. , LP
In plaintiffs' medical malpractice suit, defendant's petition for a writ of mandamus, challenging the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel because of its employment of a legal assistant, is conditionally granted as, because the legal assistant's employer did not take effective reasonable steps to shield the assistant from working on this case, and the assistant actually worked on the case at her employer's directive, disqualification is required and the trial court is directed to grant the defendant's motion to disqualify and recuse plaintiffs' counsel.

[08/26] Florida Bar v. Liberman
Following the conviction of an attorney for first degree felony of trafficking in the drug "Ecstasy," a referee's recommendation that the court accept the attorney's unconditional guilty plea and consent judgment for discipline, suspending him from the Florida Bar for three years is disapproved as, given the gravity of the offense, disbarment effective, nunc pro tunc, July 3, 2006 is the appropriate sanction in light of the criteria previously enunciated in Florida Bar v. Pahules, 233 So. 2d 130, (Fla> 1970).

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[09/03] Campbell v. Davol, Inc.
In plaintiff's product liability suit against defendants claiming that a hernia patch that was surgically placed in her abdomen following breast reconstructive surgery was defective, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to the issue of successor liability; 2) district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the post-sale failure to warn claim as there was no contractual relationship to provide services to customers who purchased the hernia patch from the manufacturer; and 3) there is no err in finding plaintiff's claims against defendant were barred by Texas law.

[09/03] Brooks v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
In plaintiff's suit against Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA), to recover damages for back injuries that he allegedly suffered while working as a machinist at defendant's locomotive repair shop, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has failed to establish causation, negligence or foreseeability; and 2) the district court properly excluded plaintiff's medical expert's causation opinion for failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2).

[09/03] Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.
In property owners' class action suit against the facility operators of a former nuclear weapons plant under the Price-Anderson Act (PAA), alleging trespass claims arising from the release of plutonium particles onto their properties, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in awarding over $926 million is reversed and remanded where: 1) district court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331; 2) because the jury was not properly instructed on an essential element of plaintiffs' PAA claims, the verdict must be set aside and the case remanded; 3) the issue of whether federal nuclear safety standards preempt state tort standards of care under the PAA is remanded; 4) the Colorado Supreme Court would not permit recovery premised on a finding that an interference, in the form of anxiety or fear of health risks, is "substantial" and "unreasonable" unless that anxiety is supported by some scientific evidence, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise; 5) defendants failed to establish that any of the state of federal standards referenced in their proposed jury instructions overcome the general rule that the jury must determine whether a given interference is "unreasonable" by weighing the harm against the utility of the interference; 6) on remand, plaintiffs are required to prove the plutonium contamination caused "physical damage to the property" in order to prevail on their trespass claims; and 7) district court did not err in instructing the jury that it could award punitive damages in the case.

[09/02] Lu v. Powell
In an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the U.S. and various officials, claiming that an asylum officer demanded sexual favors in return for assisting with plaintiffs' asylum applications, dismissal of the action is affirmed in part where plaintiffs failed to point to any specific duty under the Fifth Amendment or any specific policy to support a claim of unconstitutional policymaking. However, the dismissal is reversed in part where the emotional distress suffered as a result of the demand for sexual favors was an injury distinct from the battery and could be proved by the plaintiffs.

Read More