Award of fees to deft upon dismissal with prejudice following plaintiffs' mistaken motion to unilaterally dismiss a suit that had advanced past discovery and answer was not an abuse of discretion; plaintiff's lack of investigation, combined with their practices in other districts presented a sufficiently extraordinary circumstance to justify the grant.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172183p.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label FRCP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FRCP. Show all posts
Seventh Circuit: Bennie Kennedy v. Schneider Electric
Impeachment evidence against claims of opposing witnesses did not rise to the clear and convincing level of deliberate perjury required for fraud on the court; they should have been raised on direct appeal or in a post-judgment motion.
Rule 11 sanctions upheld, as delay in filing couldn't be ascribed to a reluctance to assert such a thing against opposing counsel.
Motion for appellate sanctions needs to be raised in a separate motion; they can't just be mentioned in the briefing.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-19/C:17-1786:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173108:S:0
Rule 11 sanctions upheld, as delay in filing couldn't be ascribed to a reluctance to assert such a thing against opposing counsel.
Motion for appellate sanctions needs to be raised in a separate motion; they can't just be mentioned in the briefing.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-19/C:17-1786:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173108:S:0
First Circuit: Dimanche v. MBTA
Sufficient evidence for verdict and damages.
While it was error for the court to limit deft's case to the proffer made in the motion to lift the default judgment, it was insufficiently plain error to reverse.
Addition of a Hostile Work Environment claim on the last day of the trial did not sufficiently prejudice the deft, given lack of objection or proffer at trial.
Circuit precedent holding that S1981 claims do not lie against state actors merely allows dismissal of those claims; it doesn't deprive the courts of subject matter jurisdiction, and since the objection wasn't raised at trial, a general verdict for plaintiff that includes pendent state law claims can stand.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1169P-01A.pdf
While it was error for the court to limit deft's case to the proffer made in the motion to lift the default judgment, it was insufficiently plain error to reverse.
Addition of a Hostile Work Environment claim on the last day of the trial did not sufficiently prejudice the deft, given lack of objection or proffer at trial.
Circuit precedent holding that S1981 claims do not lie against state actors merely allows dismissal of those claims; it doesn't deprive the courts of subject matter jurisdiction, and since the objection wasn't raised at trial, a general verdict for plaintiff that includes pendent state law claims can stand.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1169P-01A.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: David Dwayne Cassady v. Steven D. Hall, et al
Post-judgment motion to District Court seeking garnishment of funds due state inmate from a state employee is construed as a suit for the purposes of the Eleventh Amendment when it makes some claim, demand, or request against the state.
State did not waive immunity by authorizing garnishment for funds due state employees or officials as a result of services performed, and under the Rules Enablement Act, Rule 69 cannot serve as a modification or abridgment of any substantive rights.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201810667.pdf
State did not waive immunity by authorizing garnishment for funds due state employees or officials as a result of services performed, and under the Rules Enablement Act, Rule 69 cannot serve as a modification or abridgment of any substantive rights.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201810667.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Clifford Tindall v. First Solar Inc.
Where FRCP indicates abuse of discretion review, but the dismissal for not stating a claim would usually prompt de novo, circuit precedent compels a three-judge panel to review the claim for abuse of discretion.
Under Delaware law, the Board's role in financial disclosures and press releases is not a business judgment for the purposes of assessing demand futility, since the releases and disclosures are snapshots of past business decisions. The correct test looks to general oversight.
Where a court denies leave to amend in a situation where it is usually granted absent prejudice, but the rule merely permits granting for good cause, there is no need to cite or discuss the rule, so long as there is no abuse of discretion of the good cause standard.
Eighth Circuit: Leslie Grussing v. Orthopedic and Sports Medicine
No error in trial court's refusal to allow questioning of an expert on a line of inquiry that had been established by another witness.
In a diversity action, federal law governs the review of counsel statements in closing arguments.
Given curative instruction, deft counsel's mis-characterization of the burden of proof was not plainly injurious.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172228P.pdf
In a diversity action, federal law governs the review of counsel statements in closing arguments.
Given curative instruction, deft counsel's mis-characterization of the burden of proof was not plainly injurious.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172228P.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Innova Hospital San Antonio LP v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield
ERISA action need not identify the specific language of every plan provision at issue to state a claim, so long as the pleading is not overly conclusory; the suit might be resolved using representative terms.
Under state law, similar analysis applied to the claim for breach of contract.
As a suit for monetary damages is possible, a suit for breach of fiduciary duty is barred by the statute and precedent.
No error in denial of leave to amend second amended complaint, as the request did not discuss the legal standard for untimely leave to amend.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-11300-CV0.pdf
Under state law, similar analysis applied to the claim for breach of contract.
As a suit for monetary damages is possible, a suit for breach of fiduciary duty is barred by the statute and precedent.
No error in denial of leave to amend second amended complaint, as the request did not discuss the legal standard for untimely leave to amend.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-11300-CV0.pdf
Second Circuit: ING Bank N.V. v. M/V TEMARA
A statutory maritime lien arises by operation of law when a vessel contracts for covered supplies and the supplies are delivered pursuant to the contract, regardless of whether the eventual provision occurred through a chain of intermediaries.
The subcontractor is operating pursuant to another's agreement with the party to the contract with the vessel, and therefore the subcontractor cannot assert a lien against the vessel.
Equitable remedies such as unjust enrichment are not a basis for a judgment against the vessel, as the lien is an in rem action.
Error for the District Court to issue a sua sponte summary judgment absent notice to parties where a reasonable possibility existed of a factual dispute.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/2/doc/16-3923_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/2/hilite/
The subcontractor is operating pursuant to another's agreement with the party to the contract with the vessel, and therefore the subcontractor cannot assert a lien against the vessel.
Equitable remedies such as unjust enrichment are not a basis for a judgment against the vessel, as the lien is an in rem action.
Error for the District Court to issue a sua sponte summary judgment absent notice to parties where a reasonable possibility existed of a factual dispute.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/2/doc/16-3923_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/594b7f87-3c10-48a4-8c8c-42b1d446d0a8/2/hilite/
DC Circuit: Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. DHS
Trade group has competitor standing to challenge agency decision on student visas.
A claim that the agency exceeded statutory authority states a claim even absent factual allegations.
Under local rules, a party can rest on its claim in response to a motion to dismiss if the initial filing stated a plausible claim for relief.
Certain administrative challenges are not redressible.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C1913070B98EC073852582A600521EA7/$file/17-5110-1735010.pdf
A claim that the agency exceeded statutory authority states a claim even absent factual allegations.
Under local rules, a party can rest on its claim in response to a motion to dismiss if the initial filing stated a plausible claim for relief.
Certain administrative challenges are not redressible.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C1913070B98EC073852582A600521EA7/$file/17-5110-1735010.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: Pamela M. Perry, M.D. v. The Schumacher Group of Louisiana, et al
District court retained jurisdiction over action despite joint stipulation as to the sole unadjudicated claim, as only a stipulation as to the entirety of the action would suffice to dismiss the action.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201615400.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Cheryl Dalton v. Teva North America
Bare statement of diversity of citizenship does not suffice for jurisdiction.
State liability statute required expert testimony on causation; neither a claim of obviousness nor a strict liability theory of claim defeats this.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-04/C:17-1990:J:Barrett:aut:T:fnOp:N:2165052:S:0
First Circuit: Potvin v. Speedway LLC
Property owner has no duty to warn where the danger is open and obvious.
Distracting effects of nearby gas pumps waived as not raised below.
Absent evidence of design defects in statutorily mandated safety devices, no duty to remedy any danger they present.
No abuse of discretion in District Court's substitution of one deft for another, given offer to indemnify.
"Longiloquent" apparently a word.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1993P-01A.pdf
Second Circuit: In re 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties
FRCP, Fourth Amendment
(Summary judgment rulings on merits.)
Sua sponte grant of summary judgment on affirmative defense of statute of limitations procedurally prejudiced the nonmovant, and is barred under FRCP.
Warrant in civil forfeiture action that did not explicitly incorporate the supporting affidavit was insufficiently particular. Error by the court below in holding that evidence preservation and discovery obligations meant that the evidence was admissible under inevitable discovery, since the action at the time of the service of warrant imposed limited production requirements.
Seven page caption.
In re 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties
Fifth Circuit: Karen Sudduth v. TX Hlth and Human Svc Cmsn, et al
Appellate Procedure, FRCP,
Given that courts are permitted to use electronic filing and that the local rules required it, appeal that generated notice and receipt a day late is untimely, despite assertion of technical issues.
Karen Sudduth v. TX Hlth and Human Svc Cmsn, et al
First Circuit: Cornwell Entertainment, Inc. v. Anchin, Block & Anchin, LLP
FRCP, Statute of Limitations, Choice of Law, Fees, Legal Ethics
Motion for directed verdict arguing lack of fiduciary duty did not adequately preserve argument of qualified privilege related to statements to the government for post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Where the state law holds the statute of limitations to be three years for actions seeking damages and six years in an action seeking a remedy in equity, court did not abuse discretion in assigning a three year limit to an action seeking damages for a breach of fiduciary duty.
Doctrine of continuous representation equitably tolls the limit during the transactions at issue, not for the duration of the contractual relationship between the parties.
Reasonable minds could differ as to whether the negotiation for private airplane rental was damaged by the conduct.
Remand, as general verdict makes it impossible to discern theory of initial verdict.
Plaintiff's post-trial motion for fees under law of their state is precluded by the trial's choice of deft's substantive law.
Partner's lateraling to counsel's firm from prosecutor's office investigating parties to the case who was not timely screened does not require counsel to withdraw where the new partner had no actual knowledge of the investigation.
No abuse of discretion in unsealing post-trial testimony of jurors relating to process of verdict, as the public access interest outweighs the interest of confidential deliberations.
Cornwell Entertainment, Inc. v. Anchin, Block & Anchin, LLP
First Circuit: Paolino v. JF Realty, LLC
FRCP, Environmental, Fees
No abuse of discretion in court's refusal to allow revised late-filed expert testimony, as it was duplicative of other testimony, and the equitable reason for the delay had a procedural remedy.
Judgement was not against the weight of the evidence, as the only proof of pollution was from a mingled source and there are other remedial efforts in place to effect the purposes of the statute.
Award of fees under statute upheld, as suit was filed after defts had remedied the harm.
Paolino v. JF Realty, LLC
First Circuit: US v. McNicol
Statutory Construction, FRCP
Review of cross-motions for summary judgment limited to the parties' lists of uncontested facts in the court below.
Pleadings below gainsay Deft's salmagundi of contentions that estate asset was transferred to defray administrative costs.
Deft's claim that the present administrator was not the administrator when the stock was transferred cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
US v. McNicol
Ninth Circuit: JL BEVERAGE CO V. JIM BEAM BRANDS CO.
FRCP, Trademarks
Error to issue summary judgement referencing only the denial of a preliminary injunction, as the considerations are distinct.
Sufficient indicia of confusion and foreknowledge to create a genuine issue of material fact as to consumer confusion.
JL BEVERAGE CO V. JIM BEAM BRANDS CO.
Third Circuit: Sebastian Richardson v. Director Federal Bureau of Prisons
Class Actions, Mootness, FRCP
Where a representative of a class seeking prospective injunctive relief files a claim susceptible to mootness, there is not an untimely delay in seeking class certification, and the class nature of the claim is evident from the initial claim, the class certification can relate back to the filing date of the initial claim.
Sebastian Richardson v. Director Federal Bureau of Prisons
Second Circuit: Mazzei v. Money Store
Class Actions, FRCP
A court has the power and obligation to decertify a class after a jury verdict. Class members enjoy equitable tolling for the duration of the class. Findings of facts by the jury must be respected, unless egregious, serious error, or a miscarriage of justice.
No abuse of discretion in court's determination that lack of categorical privvity barred the class formation on grounds of typicality of representative and predominance of claim.
Mazzei v. Money Store
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)