Statutory interpretation, False Claims Act
Where a provision of a statute clarifies an ambiguity in a parallel earlier provision, the new reading may be retroactively applied.
Where the relator in a qui tam action under the False Claims Act merely supplies detail for things already known in outline from previous suits, the court does not have jurisdiction under the statute.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-04/C:15-1867:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1680761:S:0
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.
Seventh Circuit: Michael Thompson v. William Holm
S1983 - prison food/religion.
Denial of substitute meals during periods of fast substantially burdens Free Exercise of Religion.
No qualified immunity for denial of food.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-04/C:15-1928:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1681174:S:0
Denial of substitute meals during periods of fast substantially burdens Free Exercise of Religion.
No qualified immunity for denial of food.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-04/C:15-1928:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1681174:S:0
Fifth Circuit: William Gibson, et al v. USA, et al
FTCA
Helping folks into and out of trailers is a garden-variety fucntion not susceptible to policy analysis, and therefore not subject to the discretionary conduct exception to the FTCA.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-31303-CV0.pdf
Helping folks into and out of trailers is a garden-variety fucntion not susceptible to policy analysis, and therefore not subject to the discretionary conduct exception to the FTCA.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-31303-CV0.pdf
Fifth Circuit: USA v. James Caravayo
Sentencing, Free Association
Where a deft objects to a condition of sentence but does not phrase the objections in terms of the sentencing statute, the review is for plain error.
As claimed error does not harm the judicial process, no plain error in the lack of relation to the sentencing statute.
As sentencing condition was not reasonably related to the aim of the sentencing statute, the Free Association challenge prevails,
Dissent: As there was no objection to the sentencing condition on the basis of the statute, the argument is not preserved.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-50773-CR0.pdf
Where a deft objects to a condition of sentence but does not phrase the objections in terms of the sentencing statute, the review is for plain error.
As claimed error does not harm the judicial process, no plain error in the lack of relation to the sentencing statute.
As sentencing condition was not reasonably related to the aim of the sentencing statute, the Free Association challenge prevails,
Dissent: As there was no objection to the sentencing condition on the basis of the statute, the argument is not preserved.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-50773-CR0.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Louisiana Public Service
FRCP, Administrative law.
A case stayed indefinitely pending an administrative challenge by a nonparty qualifies for the "out of court" exception to "final order" jurisdiction.
Where the statute in question does not bar the court from staying the action, the primary jurisdiction doctrine may be used to stay an action that is within the scope of a statute that contemplates both judicial and administrative enforcement.
When staying actions pending administrative enforcement actions brought by a non-party, a temporary stay is appropriate, subject to discretionary extensions for good cause.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-30100-CV0.pdf
A case stayed indefinitely pending an administrative challenge by a nonparty qualifies for the "out of court" exception to "final order" jurisdiction.
Where the statute in question does not bar the court from staying the action, the primary jurisdiction doctrine may be used to stay an action that is within the scope of a statute that contemplates both judicial and administrative enforcement.
When staying actions pending administrative enforcement actions brought by a non-party, a temporary stay is appropriate, subject to discretionary extensions for good cause.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-30100-CV0.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Joseph Robertson, et al v. Chevron USA, Incorporated
Class Actions
When a defendant seeks to remove under CAFA "mass actions" provisions, the court should make common-sense assumptions about amounts-in-controversy.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-30920-CV0.pdf
When a defendant seeks to remove under CAFA "mass actions" provisions, the court should make common-sense assumptions about amounts-in-controversy.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-30920-CV0.pdf
Second Circuit: Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits Int’l B.V.
Comity, International Law, Trademark, Vodka.
When a foreign sovereign holds that an earlier assignment of trademark rights was ineffective, for purposes of standing, U.S. courts must defer on grounds of comity from questioning the reassignment of rights, although the subsequent questions on the merits of each assignment within its jurisdiction may be decided.
For purposes of the act of state doctrine, a state's decision on the ownership of a U.S. trademark may be considerwd as occurring within its own territory.
There is very likely no commercial exception to the Act of State doctrine. (!)
The assignment of rights of ownership of a trademark is a governmental, not commercial, act.
Prior dismissal of trademark claim does not bar present claim under res judicata, as dismissal for statutory standing is a curable defect.
As prior dismissal was voluntary, presumption of laches arises on non-Lanham claims.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b020799-9c35-4029-be16-860e741e9114/1/doc/14-4721_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b020799-9c35-4029-be16-860e741e9114/1/hilite/
When a foreign sovereign holds that an earlier assignment of trademark rights was ineffective, for purposes of standing, U.S. courts must defer on grounds of comity from questioning the reassignment of rights, although the subsequent questions on the merits of each assignment within its jurisdiction may be decided.
For purposes of the act of state doctrine, a state's decision on the ownership of a U.S. trademark may be considerwd as occurring within its own territory.
There is very likely no commercial exception to the Act of State doctrine. (!)
The assignment of rights of ownership of a trademark is a governmental, not commercial, act.
Prior dismissal of trademark claim does not bar present claim under res judicata, as dismissal for statutory standing is a curable defect.
As prior dismissal was voluntary, presumption of laches arises on non-Lanham claims.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b020799-9c35-4029-be16-860e741e9114/1/doc/14-4721_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b020799-9c35-4029-be16-860e741e9114/1/hilite/
Second Circuit: Garfield v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
Bankruptcy/FDCPA
As the remedies of the FDCPA do not explicitly conflict with the discharge injunction from bankruptcy proceedings, the Bankruptcy act does not partially repeal the FDCPA with reference to post-discharge suits; the ordinary statutory remedies are available.
Piecemeal litigation fears do not justify the barring of claims under the FDCPA.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b020799-9c35-4029-be16-860e741e9114/2/doc/15-527_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b020799-9c35-4029-be16-860e741e9114/2/hilite/
As the remedies of the FDCPA do not explicitly conflict with the discharge injunction from bankruptcy proceedings, the Bankruptcy act does not partially repeal the FDCPA with reference to post-discharge suits; the ordinary statutory remedies are available.
Piecemeal litigation fears do not justify the barring of claims under the FDCPA.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b020799-9c35-4029-be16-860e741e9114/2/doc/15-527_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b020799-9c35-4029-be16-860e741e9114/2/hilite/
First Circuit: Bezdek v. Vibram USA, Inc.
Class action - acceptance of settlement.
No abuse of discretion in acceptance of settlement below initial estimates.
No abode of discretion in valuation of injunctive relief barring false advertisements.
Given extensive discovery work, the fees and the clear sailing agreement were reasonable.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1207P-01A.pdf
No abuse of discretion in acceptance of settlement below initial estimates.
No abode of discretion in valuation of injunctive relief barring false advertisements.
Given extensive discovery work, the fees and the clear sailing agreement were reasonable.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1207P-01A.pdf
Federal Circuit: Redline Detection LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc.
Patent.
No plain error in Patent Board's refusal to accept new evidence offered solely on the basis of timeliness and relevance. Agency has discretion, not arbitrary/capricious.
Use of a fog machine to test for leaks in a conduit was not particularly obvious.
[Again, we don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent.]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1047.Opinion.12-29-2015.1.PDF
No plain error in Patent Board's refusal to accept new evidence offered solely on the basis of timeliness and relevance. Agency has discretion, not arbitrary/capricious.
Use of a fog machine to test for leaks in a conduit was not particularly obvious.
[Again, we don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent.]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1047.Opinion.12-29-2015.1.PDF
Ninth Circuit - James Styers v. Charles Ryan
Habeas/AEDPA.
Very complex. Here's our best guess on a first read:
When a state court re-evaluates a capital sentence due to a Federal Habeas writ, the case remains under collateral appeal, and is therefore not subject to non-retroactive changes in the substantive law.
In this case, the state court can consider a mitigating factor in a plenary consideration (whether Arizona's procedure here is genuinely de novo appears to be an open question) and impose the capital sentence without sending the case to a jury.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/30/12-16952.pdf
Very complex. Here's our best guess on a first read:
When a state court re-evaluates a capital sentence due to a Federal Habeas writ, the case remains under collateral appeal, and is therefore not subject to non-retroactive changes in the substantive law.
In this case, the state court can consider a mitigating factor in a plenary consideration (whether Arizona's procedure here is genuinely de novo appears to be an open question) and impose the capital sentence without sending the case to a jury.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/30/12-16952.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Adobe Systems v. Joshua Christenson
IP - Copyright & Trademark
Where a first sale defense to copyright infringement is argued, the party asserting the defense has the burden to prove the sale, but the party claiming infringement has the burden to prove that the apparent sale was actually a license.
General testimony and generic licensing templates do not suffice for proof that a specific transaction was a license.
An assertion that goods were sold under the correct mark, but without the consent of the owner of the mark speaks to unfair competition, not infringement.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/30/12-17371.pdf
Where a first sale defense to copyright infringement is argued, the party asserting the defense has the burden to prove the sale, but the party claiming infringement has the burden to prove that the apparent sale was actually a license.
General testimony and generic licensing templates do not suffice for proof that a specific transaction was a license.
An assertion that goods were sold under the correct mark, but without the consent of the owner of the mark speaks to unfair competition, not infringement.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/30/12-17371.pdf
Ninth Circuit: David Correo-Ruiz v. Loretta Lynch
Immigration.
When a petitioner asserts a reliance on prior precedent and there is a genuine issue of retroactivity, but the record is insufficient to describe the claim, the case should be remanded to the agency for the development of the record.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/30/12-72126.pdf
When a petitioner asserts a reliance on prior precedent and there is a genuine issue of retroactivity, but the record is insufficient to describe the claim, the case should be remanded to the agency for the development of the record.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/30/12-72126.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Jacquelynn Dorrance v. USA
Tax.
Stock acquired by policyholders upon demutualization of a life-insurance company is taxable, as premiums paid were solely for the defined benefit, and not an accrual of value.
Dissent: Value was accrued beyond the level of anticipated benefit prior to the IPO.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/30/13-16548.pdf
Stock acquired by policyholders upon demutualization of a life-insurance company is taxable, as premiums paid were solely for the defined benefit, and not an accrual of value.
Dissent: Value was accrued beyond the level of anticipated benefit prior to the IPO.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/30/13-16548.pdf
Ninth Circuit: DM Residential Fund II v. First Tennessee Bank DM
Property - rescission.
Lack of electrical service constitutes inquiry notice for lack of utility easement.
Dissent (Koz): No duty to investigate in the statute; no proof that they could have investigated; potential fraud claims are TKO'd by summary judgment.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/30/13-56309.pdf
Lack of electrical service constitutes inquiry notice for lack of utility easement.
Dissent (Koz): No duty to investigate in the statute; no proof that they could have investigated; potential fraud claims are TKO'd by summary judgment.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/30/13-56309.pdf
Seventh Circuit: USA v. Antonio West
Expert testimony - mental handicap.
Where expert testimony on the mental capacity of the defendant can undercut the reliability of a confession, it is admissible on those grounds.
Non-expert testimony subject to the discretion of the court.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D12-30/C:14-2514:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:1679527:S:0
Where expert testimony on the mental capacity of the defendant can undercut the reliability of a confession, it is admissible on those grounds.
Non-expert testimony subject to the discretion of the court.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D12-30/C:14-2514:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:1679527:S:0
Fifth Circuit: Bd. of Trs. Local 392 v. B&B Mech. Servs.
Labor - agency.
Employer's membership in trade negotiating organization sufficed to bind it to the CBA, even though written authorization to bind the employer was never issued.
Secondary certification writings incorporated the unexpired CBA.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0301p-06.pdf
Employer's membership in trade negotiating organization sufficed to bind it to the CBA, even though written authorization to bind the employer was never issued.
Secondary certification writings incorporated the unexpired CBA.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0301p-06.pdf
Fourth Circuit: Eddy Etienne v. Loretta Lynch
Immigration.
Expedited removal procedures allow aliens no opportunity to raise matters of law related to their deportation - Circuit split flagged.
Checkbox on a form indicating that documents are attached is an insufficient avenue to raise matters not addressed in the other checkbox options.
As Congress implicitly incorporated the common law definition of the crime, a conviction on a state charge of Conspiracy that doesn't require the overt act in furtherance usually required in the modern law still qualifies.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142013.P.pdf
Expedited removal procedures allow aliens no opportunity to raise matters of law related to their deportation - Circuit split flagged.
Checkbox on a form indicating that documents are attached is an insufficient avenue to raise matters not addressed in the other checkbox options.
As Congress implicitly incorporated the common law definition of the crime, a conviction on a state charge of Conspiracy that doesn't require the overt act in furtherance usually required in the modern law still qualifies.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142013.P.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)