Tenth Circuit: Watchous Enterprises v. Mournes, et al.

 Local rule that uncontroverted facts were to be used against the nonmovant at summary judgment did not limit the effects of nonresponse to summary judgment.  The nonmovant must either contest the facts or show that the facts should not be established at the summary judgment stage.  Absent that, the facts, if not contested later at trial, could be included in the court's instructions for the verdict or used as a basis for in limine exclusion orders (subject to challenge as to the uncontroverted facts).

On appellate review, there must be a showing as to each disputed fact, not just a list of facts claimed to have been disputed. Court did not abuse discretion in admitting the challenged facts, given the testimony.  

Watchous Enterprises v. Mournes, et al.

Ninth Circuit: Anthony Sanders, et al. v. County of Ventura

Where, under a voluntary flexible-benefits reimbursement scheme, an employer retains as healthcare-related administrative fees some portion of the funds disbursed to an employee who has opted out of the employer's health insurance scheme, although the deduction is listed as a deduction from earnings, it is not part of the base salary used to calculate overtime wages under the statute, because the statute specifically exempts funds paid to a third party for an employee-related health scheme.

As a rulemaking that purported to set a hard ceiling for the amount of the employer's reservation contradicted an earlier holding, made no textual changes to the rule, and was based on determinations considered in the earlier case, the earlier holding controls.

Anthony Sanders, et al. v. County of Ventura

Sixth Circuit: State of Ohio v. Xavier Becerra

The Supreme Court has held that the statute's mandate is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for agency construction.  The agency's reading isn't contrary to the law.  Agency adequately explained its decision to revise the rule.  

The claim that the agency looked to the policy views of professional associations and federal statutes rather than the policies of the states states a legitimate concern, but since the state regulating bodies concede that one could practice within the state while taking either view of the question, the agency's decision wasn't arbitrary and capricious. 

Where the agency states that it is changing its course on a certain issue, it need not address specific earlier conclusory determinations contrary to the new course.

Agency must offer a clearer definition of the nature of a program to ensure the mandated separation of programs. Panel takes judicial notice of the list of pending grant recipients, which is sufficient to establish irreparable harm to the states, given the loss of federal funding. Relief in the form of a preliminary injunction should be limited to the state plaintiff that established sufficient harm by affidavits.

CONCURRENCE/DISSENT: 

Agency's program separation requirements not manifestly against the statute. Statute itself defines the contested term.  Rulemaking wasn't arbitrary and capricious--there is no increased threshold for subsequent agency action relative to initial agency action. Attendant harms required where plaintiff claims injury from loss of federal funds.  Public interest calculation of the injunction calculus should consider the decision of Congress.

State of Ohio v. Xavier Becerra

Sixth Circuit: Inner City Contracting LLC v. Charter Twp. of Northville

 Despite being a disappointed bidder for a government contract, the plaintiff alleged a specific injury, and therefore the claim isn't presumptively disfavored for purposes of standing. The dignitary harm in racial discrimination and the lost profits from the contract suffice for Article III standing.

A corporation's claim of racial discrimination falls within the zone of interests of the statute prohibiting racial discrimination in contract awards. Supreme Court holding saying that a corporation has no racial identity referred to constitutional standing, not statutory standing.  

Claims against state government entities must be under the general statute (S1983), as there is no cause of action against states under the particular statute.  Under the general statute, establishing that a contract was awarded to a higher bidder of a certain race states a claim absent any proffer as to the racial identity of the plaintiff corporation.

Private company reviewing bids and making a recommendation wasn't a state actor for purposes of the statute. Lack of investigation of bidding process insufficient for municipal liability.  No equal protection or due process claim where alleged discrimination was by the private entity of a private-public collaboration. No property interest in a lost contract bid, where the state actor had discretion to accept the bid.

Inner City Contracting LLC v. Charter Twp. of Northville

 

Second Circuit: Saba Cap. CEF Opportunities 1, Ltd., Saba Cap. Mgmt., L.P. v. Nuveen

Sufficient injury for standing where an investor has progressively accumulated a position in a fund, and the administrators pass a measure limiting the voting rights by default above a certain imminent threshold; this is not a "someday intention," and the possibility that the terms could be renegotiated after a proffer would merely constitute another injury from the costs.

Diminishment of the value of the shares is an injury in law, as it violates the statute; as the loss in value is analogous to conversion or other tort claim, there is a sufficient historical analogue to establish the concrete nature of the harm.

Default restriction on the voting rights of the shares of some purchasers inherently violates the statutory requirement of present, equal voting rights in shares.  The share-shareholder distinction has only been recognized in limited terms, such as compliance with incorporation requirements, and other shareholder-based restrictions on voting are less fundamental than blocking the voting rights entirely.

Plain meaning of the statute controls, rather than interpretations of its stated purposes.

Saba Cap. CEF Opportunities 1, Ltd., Saba Cap. Mgmt., L.P. v. Nuveen

First Circuit: Milton, MA v. FAA

 Municipality's claimed injury to itself from revised airport flight-paths is insufficiently particularized to itself as a municipality to confer standing.  Similarly, the losses from litigation and challenge costs aren't injuries, since the function of a municipality is to spend money on things that might benefit the citizens.   Argument that the plans caused people to move away is legally and factually distinct, and therefore raised too late in the reply brief.

Milton, MA v. FAA