Legal News

Case Summaries

Civil Rights

[05/17] Ridley School District v. M.R.
In a suit by parents of a learning-disabled child, seeking compensatory education from a school district for violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and tuition reimbursement, including transportation expenses, for the child's enrollment in an alternative school, the district court's judgment in favor of the school district is affirmed, where: 1) the school district complied with its "child find" obligations under the IDEA, and the child was not denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE); 2) the child's individualized education program was adequate to provide a FAPE; and 3) there was no section 504 violation, as the school district took reasonable steps to accommodate the child's disabilities and include her in all class activities.

[05/17] JSJ Limited Partnership v. Mehrban
In a suit by a restaurant for abuse of process and malicious prosecution against a patron who had sued it for ADA violations, the trial court's denial of an anti-SLAPP motion to strike is reversed, where: 1) the ADA complaint arose from protected activity and was a proper subject of a motion made pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute; and 2) the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of demonstrating a likelihood it would prevail on the merits of its claims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution, since a) the litigation privilege foreclosed the pursuit of the abuse of process cause of action, and b) the restaurant's successful invocation of the defense of res judicata in the underlying ADA claim, which resulted in a voluntary dismissal, was not a favorable determination on the merits necessary for a malicious prosecution action.

[05/16] Johnson v. Killian
In a suit asserting Bivens claims for violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) against prison officials for a policy that restricted Muslim inmates' ability to perform regular congregational prayers, summary judgment in favor of the defendants is vacated, where an earlier grievance filed by the plaintiff was sufficient to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to continuing limitations on congregational prayer at the prison.

[05/16] Fitzsimons v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group
In a suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) brought by a physician against a medical group of which she was a partner, alleging unlawful retaliation for opposing sexual harassment of an employee, the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant is reversed, where: 1) the harassment of the defendant's employees, if proven, was an unlawful practice for which the defendant would be liable; 2) FEHA made it an unlawful practice for the defendant to retaliate against any "person" for opposing that harassment; and 3) "person" includes a partner.

[05/16] Asociacion de Periodistas de Puerto Rico v. Mueller
In a suit by several journalists against FBI agents, who the journalists alleged used excessive force against them during the execution of a search warrant, summary judgment to the defendants is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting discovery and relying on defendants' depositions; 2) videos were properly authenticated, and the Best Evidence Rule was satisfied; 3) the defendant agents were entitled to qualified immunity; and 4) the plaintiffs were not entitled to an injunction.

Read More

Class Actions

[05/16] In re Schering Plough Corp.
In consolidated putative class actions brought by third-party payors of drugs prescribed for off-label purposes and by individual patients against a drug company that conducted alleged illegal and false sales and marketing campaigns, the district court's dismissal of both actions for lack of standing is affirmed, where: 1) the third-party payor plaintiff did not establish that its alleged injury was fairly traceable to the defendant's alleged wrongful conduct; and 2) the individual plaintiff failed to adequately allege causation.

[05/08] Aleksick v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
In a class action challenge to the practice of a payroll services provider in converting any partial hour worked in a pay period from minutes to hundredths of an hour, thereby shorting employees of a few seconds of time and commensurate pay, summary judgment to the defendant is affirmed, where: 1) the complaint did not allege any statutory predicate for the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim of unlawfulness, and the plaintiff did not seek leave to amend, so the principle of forfeiture applied; and 2) even without forfeiture, the plaintiff could not pursue UCL claims for unlawfulness or unfairness because the Labor Code wage statutes govern the employee-employer relationship, and undisputed evidence showed the defendant was not the class members' employer.

[05/04] Liu v. Amerco
In a class action suit alleging that U-Haul had engaged in an attempted price-fixing scheme in violation of state consumer protection law, the district court's dismissal is vacated, where: 1) diversity jurisdiction existed, since the amount in controversy as to the class would likely exceed $5,000,000; 2) the alleged acts violated the state law; and 3) the plaintiff adequately pled causation of damages.

[05/01] Casey v. Merck & Co.
In litigation involving product liability claims for injuries allegedly caused by a prescription drug manufactured by the defendant, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed, where the plaintiffs' actions were untimely under Virginia's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, since the Supreme Court of Virginia determined that: 1) there is no authority in Virginia jurisprudence for the equitable tolling of a statute of limitations based upon the pendency of a putative class action in another jurisdiction; and 2) Va. Code Ann. section 8.01-229(E)(1) does not toll the statute of limitations for unnamed putative class members due to the pendency of a putative class action in another jurisdiction.

[04/25] Kinecta Alternative Financial Solutions Inc. v. Superior Court (Malone)
In a putative class action alleging wage and hour violations by an employer, in which the defendant moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's individual claims, alleging failure to pay overtime and provide rest and meal periods, and to dismiss the class claims, it is held that: 1) the plaintiff did not provide evidence establishing that the provision authorizing only bilateral arbitration was unenforceable or that classwide arbitration was required; and 2) the parties' arbitration agreement did not authorize class arbitration, so the order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss class claims without prejudice had to be reversed.

Read More

Labor & Employment Law

[05/18] Crowther v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
In consolidated negligence actions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) against two railroad defendants brought by a former employee, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed, where: 1) no fact-finder could reasonably have inferred that the plaintiff first became aware of a work connection with his knee pain and neck injury within the period of limitation; 2) there was no error in entering judgment as a matter of law on negligence claims based on inadequate tools and failure to obtain ergonomic studies of the activities required to perform the plaintiff's various jobs; and 3) it was not reversible error to admit collateral source evidence that the plaintiff was receiving disability benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act.

[05/16] Fitzsimons v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group
In a suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) brought by a physician against a medical group of which she was a partner, alleging unlawful retaliation for opposing sexual harassment of an employee, the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant is reversed, where: 1) the harassment of the defendant's employees, if proven, was an unlawful practice for which the defendant would be liable; 2) FEHA made it an unlawful practice for the defendant to retaliate against any "person" for opposing that harassment; and 3) "person" includes a partner.

[05/16] People ex rel. Harris v. Sunset Car Wash, LLC
In a state action against a car wash, seeking to recover unpaid wages and penalties owed by a company that had operated a car wash at the same location before being evicted by the property owner, judgment in favor of the People is affirmed, where: 1) successor liability applied under Labor Code section 2066, as the plain meaning of "successor" is any entity defined in the four clauses of section 2066; 2) reliance on external definitions of "successor" would defeat the purpose of section 2066; and 3) section 2066 provides the necessary notice of the potential for successor liability for labor law violations, and so does not violate due process.

[05/15] Harman Mining Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, DOL
In a case in which an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that a man suffered disabling obstructive lung disease arising out of his work as a coal miner and awarded his widow black lung benefits payable by his former employer, a petition for review is denied, where the award of benefits found support in the record and accorded with the Administrative Procedure Act, as the ALJ properly evaluated the appropriate weight to accord conflicting medical opinions.

[05/14] Cash v. Winn
In a suit for overtime wages brought by an in-home caretaker who was not a licensed or trained nurse, judgment in favor of the plaintiff is reversed, where: 1) the plaintiff performed the duties of a personal attendant and did not spend more than 20 percent of her weekly work time performing other duties, and so was exempt from overtime; and 2) a "regular administration of health care services" exception does not exist under California law as applied to a household employee who is not licensed or trained to perform nursing or other medical services.

Read More