Ninth Circuit: Pinkette Clothing v. Cosmetic Warriors

Although laches is not available against a copyright or patent claim within the term of the statute, the Lanham Act provides a five year period to equitably challenge a mark, after which a challenge is still available on other grounds. Laches, as an equitable defense, is therefore available as a defense within the initial five year term.

No error in finding that the claim was equitably barred, given showing that most analogous state statutes of limitations had expired.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/29/17-55325.pdf

Eighth Circuit: US v. Kevin Morrisey

Plain error not to instruct jury that Possession, as a lesser included offense of Receipt, could not be proved with respect to the same items.

Improper venue claim waived by counsel at trial.

Shift in the theory of the offense that would have encompassed crimes outside of the court's jurisdiction did not constitute a constructive amendment of the indictment, as venue is not an essential element of the offense. 

Plain error to admit spreadsheet with list of images with outside expert hearsay commmentary, but no prejudice.

No prejudice from statement in closing that implied that files could be received by when internally transferred.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172157P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Garcia-Mata v. Sessions

Board holding that contradicted Immigration Judge's findings of fact without claiming clear error was contrary to it's interpretation of its own jurisdiction and the principle that holdings must be stated clearly; citing the regulation that allows for different standards of review in different situations does not sufficiently establish the claim of clear error.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171682P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: US v. Kwame Askia

Federal embezzlement statute is not a continuing offense; once the threshold has been reached, the offense is complete.  For purpose of the stature of limitations, however, so long as the limit is reached within the relevant timeframe, the fact that the offense began earlier doe not bar the indictment.

No plain error in introduction of evidence of theft outside the statute of limitation's timeframe; no sixth amendment claim arising from pro se / standby.

Hearsay claim arising out of pretrial detention hearing moot. No 6A claim.

Sufficient evidence.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171515P.pdf


Seventh Circuit: Isaac Capps v. Kevin Drake

Sua sponte referral of postjudgment motion to another court is within the inherent authority of the court.

Whatever the legal status of the fee agreement, error to deny fees under S1988 where petitioner's primary interest is the vindication of the claim and the award is not de minimis; the fact that the award was under the last settlement offer does not negate the basis for the award.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-29/C:17-1876:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2179169:S:0


Seventh Circuit: Chicago Joe's Tea Room, LLC v. Village of Broadview

Denial of equitable relief can suffice for interlocutory appeal despite pendent unresolved damages.

Sufficient standing for the owner where owner leases to a party who leases to another party for use barred by the action in question.

Claim arising from municipality's barring of the use is moot, as the lessee's planned use would always have violated governing law, so enforcement of the municipal regulation is not barred by the vested rights doctrine; an earlier finding of licit use does not bind under law of the case, as it is a subjective, discretionary consideration of jurisdiction, and there is no indication that the earlier finding considered the relevant statute. 

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-29/C:16-1989:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2178625:S:0

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Marcus Fleming

Plain procedural error in sentencing where the court bases an upward variance on extrinsic evidence first revealed at sentencing, and the deft is not given a meaningful opportunity to dispute the veracity or relevance of that evidence.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0129p-06.pdf


Sixth Circuit: Rita McDaniel v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc.

Where the claim arises from a state product liability statute that looks to the federal guidelines as to the level of medical warnings to be provided, a claim under the tort based on the omission of the warning is impliedly preempted by federal law.

Concur/dissent (CJ) -- Violation of the federal statute is not a necessary element of the claim, so not preempted.  Learned intermediary doctrine does not save defts.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0128p-06.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Kymberli Gardner v. CLC of Pascagoula, L.L.C.

In a Title VII action for hostile work environment, when an employer becomes aware of harassing or violent conduct by a thord party, it has an obligation to attempt a remedy.

A wrongful termination action under the same statute presents an issue for trial where the protected activity is a refusal to deal with the harassing third party and there is a showing of direct evidence associating the refusal with the firing.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-60072-CV0.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Fisk Electric Company v. DQSI, L.L.C.

As the rights and liabilities arising from claims on a contract to construct a federal building are derivative of federal statutes, federal law governs a claim of fraudulent inducement.

As the federal common law of contracts mirrors the common law, the Restatement standard of de minimis burden to investigate fraudulent inducement, the claim presented a genuine issue of material fact where a party made reasonable attempts to gain the relevant documents through FOIA requests.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30091-CV0.pdf


Fifth Circuit: Fallon Family, L.P. v. Goodrich Petroleum Corp.

Under state law, where a continuing contractual scheme of payments for a mineral lease is not reflected in the property's recordation, a party to the contract cannot exercise the power of dissolution against the debtor-in-possession counterparty otherwise liable for the pre-petition payments, as the latter has acquired the status of bona fide puchaser for value.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20278-CV0.pdf

Hebdominal sabbatical

As CB has a conference presentation to prepare, dissertation work to do, and wants to spend more quality time on bar prep, there will likely be no batting practice here next week. 

G-d willin' and the crick don't rise, I'll likely be back the following week, or some time after that. 

Keep yer stick on the ice.

-- CB

Eleventh Circuit: US v. Johnson

En banc order.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201615690.ord.pdf

Eleventh Circuit: Cozzi v. Thomas

Denial of qualified immunity for arrest when tips merely established present location of suspect, and that he matched the description; as tattoos were not examined and a bag of 32 pills was insufficient indication that suspect had taken six during the robbery, arrest was not arguably within reasonable suspicion.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201711011.pdf

Eleventh Circuit: Dennis Haynes v. Hooters of America, LLC

Suit seeking relief that is parallel to an already-agreed settlement with a third party is not moot, as there is no proof in the record of present compliance, no guarantee of ongoing compliance, and the plaintiff wouldn't have standing to enforce the third-party agreement.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201713170.pdf

DC Circuit: USA v. Marlon Haight

No abuse of discretion in denial of delay in trial when gov't moves to include new holograph evidence two weeks before trial.

Harmless non-abuse-of-discretion to allow hearsay report of identification of deft, as declarant was available to testify at trial, and did testify at trial, and, on direct, didn't remember the identification.

No abuse of discretion in admission of deft's holograph writings in backpack, as sufficiently authenticated, and probative of deft's ownership of backpack and general knowledge of guns and drugs.

Ineffective assistance remanded for factual development.

District Assault with a Dangerous Weapons statute is a valid ACCA predicate, given its elements; a violent force can be indirect or made with merely reckless intent.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/6DDDED8EB99FE1A5852582B4004FFDDF/$file/16-3123.pdf





DC Circuit: Ameren Services Company, et al v. FERC

A regulated party has standing to challenge the regulation.

Question is ripe, as possible future displacement of a utility's approved projects due to the change in the cost allocation scheme's structure is conceded by all parties, and further factual development wouldn't speak to the question of law at issue.

Claim first made in Article III review that the agency impermissibly shifted the burden of proving reasonableness to the utility needed to be exhausted in the pertition for agency review.

On merits, Commission's ruling that already-approved projects needed to be revisited in light of the regionally interconnected projects was not arbitrary or capricious, as there are public policy benefits from that sort of thing, and proper accounting for the interregional projects requires integration of the costs of the already-approved projects.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/6440A9564E36D841852582B4004FED20/$file/16-1150.pdf




Federal Circuit: Starry Associates v. US

The statute authorizing an award of fees does not contemplate egregiously dilatory agency conduct as a basis for increasing the base rate of compensation; as the "special factor" basis is listed with a "cost of living" basis, the statute authorizes increases in the award where the base rate is insufficient due to the character of the representation.  Because noscitur.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2148.Opinion.6-22-2018.pdf

Tenth Circuit: United States v. Vance

If the traffic stop on a theory of presenting a hazard to others was due to a mistake of law, it was a reasonable mistake of law, given the state's law about changing lanes.

As an element of the lane-changing law is the driver's omission of checking to see if the lane is clear, the police had reasonable cause for the stop in order to determine if the required visual check had been performed.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-2008.pdf

Tenth Circuit: United States v. Pacheco-Donelson

No plain error in procedural reasonableness of supervised release condition barring all contact with gang members--including family members--as deft had the burden to prove close association.

No abuse of discretion in substantive reasonableness of same condition, given past extensive gang associations and the need to protect the public.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-1180.pdf