Legal News

Case Summaries

Civil Rights

[07/02] Howard v. Kansas City Police Dep't
District court order denying defendant-police officers' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim of excessive force on the basis of qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) the defendants violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force when they seized him, as the defendants' actions in forcing a victim with gunshot wounds to lie without a shirt on hot asphalt and causing second-degree burns were not objectively reasonable; and 2) the defendants had fair warning that their alleged conduct was not objectively reasonable, and thus unconstitutional.

[07/02] Harbison v. Little
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action challenging Tennessee's lethal injection protocol under the Eighth Amendment, judgment for Plaintiff is vacated where Baze v. Rees, 128 S. Ct. 1520 (2008), addressed the same risks identified by the District Court, but reached the conclusion that they did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

[07/01] In re Shinnecock Smoke Shop
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board judgment is affirmed where: 1) the board properly affirmed the rejection of petitioner's trademark application, as the Shinnecock Indian Nation is an institution and thus falls within the protection of 15 U.S.C. sec. 1052(a); 2) the USPTO's refusal to register his marks was not a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, as the petitioner was provided a full opportunity to prosecute his applications and to appeal the examining attorney's final rejections to the Board; 3) the refusal did not violate petitioner's equal protection rights, as the Board and the examining attorney had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for denying registration; and 4) the refusal to register the mark was not racial discrimination in violation of the United Nations' International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as petitioner failed to establish any racial discrimination, and he has no private right of action under the treaty.

Read More

Class Actions

[07/01] Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman
Trial court judgment sustaining the demurrers of Class Counsel is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff is collaterally estopped from pursuing a malpractice claim against Class Counsel based on the theory that counsel breached their duty of care to the class by failing to negotiate a different settlement notice procedure than that approved by the trial court in the prior action; and 2) plaintiff's argument that Class Counsel breached their duty of care by failing to contact him specifically once they knew or should have known that he had not submitted a timely claim form fails, as there is no authority imposing such an obligation on counsel in a class action suit. The court's award of sanctions to plaintiff's former employer Allstate under Code of Civil Procedure sec. 128.7 is reversed where Allstate did not satisfy the safe harbor requirements of the statute in seeking monetary sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel.

[06/30] Garcia-Rubiera v. Calderon
In an action challenging amendments to Puerto Rico's Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Act, district court judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the court erred in dismissing plaintiff's takings clause claim, as their takings claim for declaratory and injunctive relief is ripe despite the failure to utilize Procedure No. 96 to pursue their administrative remedy; 2) although plaintiffs have a sufficient property interest in the duplicate premiums for purposes of due process, further proceedings are necessary to determine whether the transfers to the Secretary of Treasury constitutes a sufficient deprivation of that property interest to require notice under the Due Process Clause; 3) the court properly dismissed plaintiff's equal protection claim as neither law is directed to a protected class, and the Commonwealth's action is rational and serves the legitimate end of balancing the budget; 4) the court properly granted qualified immunity to defendants; and 5) the court erred in denying class certification as plaintiffs satisfied all the requirements necessary to certify a class.

[06/29] Arias v. Superior Court of San Joaquin Valley
In an action alleging violations of the Labor Code, labor regulations, and an Industrial Welfare Commission wage order, Court of Appeals judgment is affirmed where: 1) employee who sues an employer under the unfair competition law for Labor Code violations must satisfy class action requirements, and Proposition 64's amendment of law does not require otherwise; and 2) class action requirements do not need to be satisfied when an aggrieved employee seeks civil penalties for himself and other employees under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 for an employer's alleged Labor Code violations.

Read More

Labor & Employment Law

[07/02] Hughes v. Pair
Court of Appeals judgment for defendant in a sexual harassment action is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's factual allegations fail to establish the severe or pervasive conduct necessary to pursue a claim of hostile environment sexual harassment under Civil Code sec. 51.9, as the conduct was not so egregious as to alter the conditions of the underlying professional relationship and could not plausibly be construed by a reasonable trier of fact as a threat to commit a sexual assault on plaintiff; and 2) the court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress as plaintiff failed to establish either extreme or outrageous conduct by defendant or that plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress.

[07/02] Milholland v. Sumner Cty. Bd. of Educ.
In an Americans with Disabilities Act action alleging that Plaintiff teacher was transferred between positions based on her arthritis, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant regarded her as disabled.

[06/30] Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc.
In an employment termination action, trial court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there was substantial evidence that defendant violated public policy in dismissing plaintiff; and 2) there was insufficient evidence of malice, fraud or oppression to support the award of punitive damages.

Read More