Fifth Circuit: Marquette Trans v. Navigation Mrtm

 Although the appellant LLC did not sufficiently establish diversity jurisdiction by pleading the citizenship of all of it members, the fact that its claims sound in admiralty is sufficient for appellate jurisdiction, and the pleading should be amended on remand.

As state harbor pilotage regulation is a statutory exception to the general preemption of admiralty, the higher burden of proof under state law is not preempted by the preponderance standard of admiralty.

The pretrial objection to the admission of the evidence sufficiently preserved the issue for appeal; the argument in a separate pretrial motion that the evidence was inadmissible as summary evidence did not. Challenge to the admission of the accident reconstruction was harmless, as there was ultimately no claim that it was inaccurate or unreliable,

Motion to strike the jury demand for lack of the amount in controversy and an implied consent to proceed in admiralty doesn't preserve for appeal a claim that the jury trial was error because of lack of diversity.  Also no showing of harm or constitutional violation.

Challenge to jury finding of lack of negligence and award of damages was forfeited for lack of a post-judgment motion for judgment as a matter of law.  Evidence was sufficient, even under the higher standard of proof.

Court appropriately limited expert testimony.

Marquette Trans v. Navigation Mrtm

First Circuit: Gibson Foundation, Inc. v. Norris

 As a reasonable finder of fact could determine that the agreement to keep the piano in the warehouse was a consensual agreement that ultimately benefitted both parties, and under state law, claims regarding bailments can be subject to either the contract-claim or tort-claim statute of limitations, there exists an issue for trial as to whether the shorter limitation term applies.

Possession is sufficient for rebuttable proof of ownership at the time of the creation of the bailment; ownership, and therefore the validity of the bailment, therefore presents a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

A reasonable juror could find that the acceptance of the piano created an enforceable contract, as the owner of the piano saved storage costs, making for sufficient consideration. The term of the contract need not have been definite; possessing it until it was requested by the owner would be sufficient.

Genuine issue for trial as to ownership, given corporate succession beforehand; employee's statement that the piano would be "all yours" if picked up states a claim for transfer of ownership.

 Gibson Foundation, Inc. v. Norris

First Circuit: Williams v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.

 Although the District Court excluded the expert testimony, a precise reading of the testimony establishes that the plaintiff hasn't met their burden on causation; the question is not if the fractured weld caused the accident, but whether the defect in the weld caused the accident.

Williams v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.

Sixth Circuit: Frank Fisher v. Michelle Perron

Where a state intermediate appellate holding gives a statute a certain construction, the reading is determinative for a federal court attempting to ascertain the views of the state courts, absent persuasive data to the contrary.

State tort of disclosure of private information requires disclosures to be materially highly offensive.

Wiretap Act exemption to one-party consent requires that the interception or recording be for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; facts here insufficient to establish that.

Frank Fisher v. Michelle Perron

Eighth Circuit: Louis Gareis v. 3M Company

 

Plaintiff suffered no prejudice from the exclusion of evidence of knowledge of risks and effective alternatives on the part of the device manufacturer, since none of the evidence excluded addressed causation, an element of the claim.

If the admission of expert testimony on operating room airflow was error, it was harmless, given the many other avenues established for the bacteria to have entered the wound.

As causation is an element of a lack of warning claim under state law, if the court erred in holding that the deft had actual or constructive knowledge, the error was harmless, since causation was never established.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/08/183553P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Tom Magee v. Benjamin Harris

 

As the mail carrier's errand for a friend arose from a personal motive and wasn't fairly and naturally incident to his duties, the state law presumption of  acting within the scope of employment when driving a vehicle owned by the employer was sufficiently rebutted.  

Although there was no written policy forbidding it, the policies incorporate managerial directives, and the manager's testimony that such a break was forbidden sufficiently supports the court's determination that the detour was unauthorized.  

Driving to the store for a friend's dog food was of a sufficiently marked and decided character to take the mail carrier outside the scope of their employment.  Returning to the break place did not return the carrier to the scope of employment, as the employee must return to the point of deviation or to a place where he should be located inthe performance of his duties.  

Scope of employment is a threshold question under the act, and does not require jury determination as part of the merits.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/08/202590P.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Tyler Kirk v. Clark Equipment Company

 

Concise Daubert analysis is distinct from conclusory Daubert analysis, and therefore is analyzed for abuse of discretion.

Merely establishing the qualifications of the expert is insufficient; the principles and methods used must be analyzed as well.  Expert testimony involving theories that had not been tested on that type of machine were within the discretion of the court to exclude, even given subsequent remedial measures by deft. Expert testimony as to causation legitimately excluded, since the expert was speculating as to the amount of weight that caused the machine to unbalance; there was no requirement to let the question of causation go to the finder of fact, since the court has a gatekeeper function with expert testimony.

Absent expert testimony, the strict liability defective design claim didn't present a genuine issue of material fact for trial, since consumer expectations are insufficient objective proof when it comes to industrial machines.

Tyler Kirk v.  Clark Equipment Company

Eighth Circuit: United States v. John Fortenberry

 

Statute's description of judgment on the merits looks to actual adjudication of the substantive issues of the claim rather than looking to the procedural rules' definition of judgment on the merits.  A dismissal of a claim against an agent due to a limitations period does not require the dismissal of the claim against the alleged principal under the statute, or under normal principles of vicarious liability.

Abuse of discretion to admit evidence of past bad acts that were time-barred from the suit, as they were more prejudicial than probative.  As it became a theme of the case, limiting instruction was insufficient.

Evidence of retaliation and harassment by non-defendant agents of the municipality was also more prejudicial than probative, as it translated into the theme that the municipality was a bad actor.

Implying that the municipality had indemnified the defendant officers for punitive damages when in fact only compensatory damages were to be covered was an abuse of discretion.

Cumulative evidentiary errors and misleading jury instructions suffice for vacatur and new trial.

United States  v.  John Fortenberry

Fifth Circuit: Franco v. Mabe Trucking, et al

 

Plain text of a federal statute permitting the transfer of an action where the court has a want of jurisdiction allows transfers for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or both.

The provisions of the statute are compulsory, so they apply whether or not the court cites it when transferring an action.

State statute prescribing any suit after one year from the accrual of the claim but tolled by either filing a claim in a court of sufficient jurisdiction and venue or service looks to the federal courts to determine the date of filing of suit, so the federal law relating back the transferred suit to the date of filing in the first venue.  The state statute looks to the federal relation-back because the Rules of Decision Act privileges federal statutes over state laws, so the Erie analysis looks first to the federal statutory law.  The federal statute controls under the Supremacy Clause; the case is within the statute, and Congress had sufficient authority to pass the statute to regulate the federal courts.

DISSENT:

Federal statute wasn't intended to regulate state statutes of limitations.  State law is an integrated regulation of statute of limitations and service of process.  Majority's view leads to unequal results between state and federal court, and in federal courts handling transferred claims and federal courts serving as the initial forum

Franco v. Mabe Trucking, et al

Eighth Circuit: Lukeus Scott v. Key Energy Services, Inc.

 

Since, after the accident, the device manufacturer was merged into the injured employee's employer, the manufacturer can't presently be considered a third party tortfeasor, even the the person of the employer as successor in interest.

The law of the state disfavors the dual capacity exception to exclusive liability.

Dissent: The state's courts have recognized an exception where there is a distinct, separate legal persona.

Lukeus Scott  v.  Key Energy Services, Inc.

Fifth Circuit: Aldridge, et al v. MS Dept of Corrections, et al

 

Given the savings clause, the federal statute doesn't create field preemption.

Although employees can seek relief under state or federal statutes, the federal statute preempts any state tort claims within its scope.

Aldridge, et al v. MS Dept of Corrections, et al.

Fourth Circuit: Ruth Akers v. Maryland State Education Assoc

 

Assuming without deciding that the Supreme Court holding that public sector labor unions are not able to compel representation fee payments from nonmembers is retroactive, a claim to recoup these funds under S1983 is an action for damages, not disgorgement, as the funds are no longer traceable.

Private citizens who rely in good faith on a state law later found to be unconstitutional can interpose a defense of good faith to an action for damages under the federal statute.

Assuming without deciding that the common law tort defenses at the time of the adoption of the federal statute determine which defenses are available to the statutory tort claim, the closest analogue to a private citizen's reliance on an unconstitutional state law is abuse of process, not conversion.

Ruth Akers v. Maryland State Education Assoc

Third Circuit: Lisa Earl v. NVR Inc

Given intervening state court decisions, the economic loss doctrine (barring recovery in tort from claims arising from a contract) does not bar claims for economic loss under the federal deceptive practices statute. 

Gist of the action doctrine does not bar recovery in tort for claims squarely arising in contract, where the contract is collateral to the fraud or negligence.

Lisa Earl v. NVR Inc

Sixth Circuit: A. K. v. Durham Sch. Servs., L.P.

 

As during the trial the appellant didn't argue the relevance of the excluded evidence to comparative negligence factors (including risk avoidance), and the jury wasn't instructed on these factors, no material harm from the exclusion of employee handbook, given that the verdict found negligence, but less than a preponderance, barring any recovery under comparative negligence.

Similarly, appellant didn't argue below that the excluded expert testimony would be useful in allocating fault, so no material hamr from exclusion.

Dissent:

As comparative negligence is simply the degree of negligence, arguing negligence below suffices to consider the harm.  Per precedent, court should have a fair assurance of the error not being dispositive.

A. K. v. Durham Sch. Servs., L.P. 

Sixth Circuit: Todd Courser v. Keith Allard

 

Court appropriately dismissed S1983 & S1985 claims, as the constitutional interests were not pleaded with particularity.

Court appropriately did the same to state constitutional claims, as those are limited to official-capacity claims.

Alleged CFAA violations resulted in no harm, and there is no civil c/a to enforce the criminal elements of the statute.

Defamation claim was time-barred under state SOL.

To state a claim for civil conspiracy, the underlying tort harm needs to be established -- the defts can't be implicated in a tort that requires them to be the tortfeasors by a claim of conspiracy.

Other tort and RICO claims legally or factually insufficient.

Wiretap Act time-barred.

Court appropriately set aside default judgment against one deft on equitable grounds.

Todd Courser v. Keith Allard

DC Circuit: Imapizza, LLC v. At Pizza Limited

Conditional request for leave to amend in memorandum in opposition didn't satisfy local rules for motion for leave to amend.

Downloading images from plaintiff's US website is not sufficient for domestic copyright infringement, as fixation happens when the image is reproduced for the foreign viewer.

Taking photographs of US restaurants in support of a scheme of actual copying abroad doesn't infringe, as the act of taking photos of these buildings didn't infringe.

Generally, the predicate act test requires an act of domestic infringement.

Tourist confusion as harm would impermissibly broaden the effects-based extraterritorial scope of the Lanham Act.

Visit for the purpose of infringement was not Trespass.

No abuse of discretion in denial of surreply, as party had two opportunities to weigh in on the issue.

Imapizza, LLC v. At Pizza Limited

Fifth Circuit: Will McRaney v. N Amer Mission Bd So Baptist

Dismissal of a civil tort claim under the Religious Matters abstention doctrine is inappropriate absent sufficient indication that the resolution of the question will force the court to interfere with religious government or matters of faith or doctrine.

Will McRaney v. N Amer Mission Bd So Baptist

Sixth Circuit: Kevin Malone v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc

Pleading that alleged tortfeasor conducted business, formed contracts, and caused injury within the state suffices to state a claim involving sufficient purposeful availment for personal jurisdiction within the forum; further discovery is warranted where such a claim is made against a supplier who sells their product through a national retail chain.

Kevin Malone v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc

Sixth Circuit: Joan Weser v. Kimberly Goodson

Presence on property sufficient for criminal trespass arrest for the purposes of S1983 claim, as officer's witness of the midemeanor as required by state law isn't a requirement under the Federal Constitution.

Even deliberate mistruth would not be enough to implicate private citizen in S1983 false arrest claim, as it's not under the color of state law.

District Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over false arrest state tort claim, as arrest with probable cause for an offense not justifying custodial arrest is a novel issue for the tort.

False statements by private individual not a sufficient basis for state tort claim of false arrest, as insufficient nexus to the arrest.

Joan Weser v. Kimberly Goodson

Seventh Circuit: Brian Reynolds v. Henderson & Lyman

Existence of a duty of care, although dispositive, is a question of law that, in the federal forum, is decided by the judge.  As the division of responsibilities for finding facts and law at the trial stage is a procedural one, the procedures of the federal forum control.

Under state law, attorneys for LLC owed no third-party duty of care to LLC owner and manager.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-12/C:17-1999:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:2217358:S:0