Eighth Circuit: Tom Dunne, Jr. v. Resource Converting, LLC

 

Jury's award of punitive damages without compensatory damages in a suit seeking return of a 400K investment necessarily found that while there had been an injury, no compensatory damages were warranted.  A lack of compensatory damages when awarding punitive damages does not offend the state's law, as establishment of damages is different than award of damages.  Additur in this situation would be unconstitutional.

Criminal fines for correlative conduct cannot be used to establish disproportionality of award.

Court did not abuse discretion in holding that the claim at law precluded equitable redress for the lost funds.

Court's reduction of requested fees was valid under governing state law; similar reduction in costs was valid under governing federal law.

Court erred by applying federal law to claim preclusion; the appropriate law is the law of the forum in which the first decision was made.

Economic loss doctrine, under the law of the state, would not bar claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. 

Tom Dunne, Jr.  v.  Resource Converting, LLC

Ninth Circuit: Arconic, Inc. v. APC Investment Co.

 

Where a statute creates a right to seek contribution to an environmental settlement or judgment but provides that such contribution must be sought within three years of the entry of judgment, seeking contributions from de minimis co-polluters that indemnify them against any future claims does not start the clock to seek other contributions within a prospective limitations period triggered by a subsequent claim against the same site.  A right to contribution can't arise until the judgment creating the liability is entered, and this division of eligible costs serves the purposes of the law

Judicial estoppel similarly does not preclude seeking a second round of contributions for a second judgment, as there's no inconsistency.

Arconic, Inc. v. APC Investment Co.

First Circuit: Caribbean Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. Erikon, LLC

District Court's denial of leave to execute the judgment was sufficiently final for appeal, as it finished the matter in the court below.

Doubt as to whether notice of appeal listing only the motion to reconsider but asking that the underlying order be vacated conferred sufficient jurisdiction to vacate the underlying order, even absent prejudice.

No abuse of discretion in District Court's equitable decision to deny the motion.

As there was no fundamental misapprehension of facts or law, similarly no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to reconsider.

Caribbean Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. Erikon, LLC

Fourth Circuit: US v. Daryl Bank

Explicit waiver of Double Jeopardy rights in agency civil proceeding does not bar current challenge, since agreement did not reference future or criminal proceedings, and agency's equitable remedy was not yet considered a criminal punishment.

Although disgorgement is meant as a punitive measure for behaviour that violates the public law, the determination that the criminal statutes of limitations apply is an insufficiently clear rule to establish that the penalty is sufficiently criminal in nature to justify a double jeopardy claim, in that the legislature clearly intended a civil equitable remedy when it empowered the agency to seek it.

US v. Daryl Bank

Third Circuit: Trinity Industries Inc v. Greenlease Holding Co

Risk did not pass back to indemnified party at the end of the period of indemnification, but should be allocated according to law and the other provisions of the agreement.

Cleanup costs, although more expensive due to being prompted by consent order, had sufficient nexus to the environmental response and were therefore reasonable.

Cost allocation methodology was improper, as it did not consider costs of individual remediations.

Court did not abuse discretion in attributing lead contamination to historic factors.

Arbitrary award  percentages used in balancing of equities were not supported by specifics in the record.

Corporate entities distinct.  Public policy requires presumption for the corporate form.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/161994p.pdf

Fifth Circuit: David Hager v. Todd G. Rowan

Discharged employee retains ERISA standing to challenge COBRA notification.

Since the employee was no longer eligible for the plan, medical costs otherwise covered by the plan are not an appropriate remedy; as the remedy must be in equity, the medical costs are similarly an inappropriate award; the proper remedy is a penalty based on the seriousness o the violation, and it is entirely possible that the amount of the penalty is equal to the medical costs incurred.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-11147-CV0.pdf

Second Circuit: Leopard Marine & Trading, Ltd. v. Easy Street Ltd.

As jurisdiction over an in personam action under the Declaratory Judgment Act seeking a declaration of rights in a maritime lien is merely derivative of the jurisdiction over the lien, arrest or presence of the res is a matter of service, not jurisdictional, and jurisdiction can be gained by means of a forum selection clause in a contract for supplies between the operator of the vessel and the claimant on the lien.

As the present quasi in rem suit is an in personam action, abstention for comity in light of a foreign in rem action on the same res is not required.

Although the conduct of the enforcement of the lien is within the present forum's statute of limitations, which is generally held to be the common law rule, equitable considerations permitted the district court to extinguish the lien for laches -- due to the delay, the owner of the ship was unable to enforce a lien against the cargo carried by the operator who had incurred the fuel bill.

Dissent: Maritime liens are stricti juris, and arise from the custody of the res.  The interpleader precedent cited by the majority relies on consent to federal jurisdiction, with the lien then found to be inextricably intertwined.  The operator's consent to the forum selection provision is distinct from a general consent to federal jurisdiction, and jurisdiction cannot be manufactured by consent of the parties.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b424590-d624-49bf-bc3b-f406f744f01c/2/doc/16-1356_complete_pdf.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b424590-d624-49bf-bc3b-f406f744f01c/2/hilite/

Fifth Circuit: Stemcor USA Incorporated v. Cia Siderurgica do Par

District court had subject matter jurisdiction under international convention to enforce the provisional arbitration award.

Although strict compliance with a state preemptive attachment statute would allow attachments of assets allocated by arbitration award on the understanding that they were subsequently to be converted to judgment, such a showing was not made here.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-30984-CV1.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Mario Ortiz v. Ferrellgas Partners

Where injunctive antitrust relief is sought, and the remedy parallels existing FTC consent orders, the complaint, to establish an injury, must contain sufficient factual content to support the rational inference that the nonmovant has violated the consent orders.

Indirect purchasers cannot seek disgorgement, given the risk of multiple and inconsistent proceedings.

Remanded to consider if state law claims are sufficient to retain jurisdiction.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/164086P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Peter Kiewit Sons' v. Steven West

FRCP, Remedies

When the court has made adverse credibility findings in discovery phase, there is no error in denial of a postponement of hearing for medical reasons when no firm date for availability is offered.

Where the deft does not establish how much of the gains were devoted to expenses, no error in not reducing disgorgement for trademark violation to account for defts' expenses.

A remark in sentencing that the amount of award is enough to make plaintiff whole is not enough to establish that disgorgement was used as compensatory measure.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143461P.pdf