News

Case Summaries

Civil Procedure

[12/03] W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Deloitte & Touche LLP
Denial of motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint alleging securities violations is reversed where: 1) plaintiff-investment advisor lacked constitutional standing to bring suit for violations of the federal securities laws in its own name but on behalf of its clients, the beneficial owners of the relevant securities; 2) plaintiff did not demonstrate an "injury-in-fact" because it does not have legal title or ownership of its clients' claims; and 3) plaintiff's dual status as an attorney-in-fact for litigation purposes and an investment advisor with unfettered discretion over its clients' investment decisions did not confer on Article III standing to sue in a representative capacity on its clients' behalf.

[12/02] County of Sacramento v. Llanes
Denial of defendant's motion to set aside a judgment of paternity as untimely is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) defendant's motion was timely; 2) plaintiff-county should have been estopped from asserting the motion was untimely because the California Department of Child Support Services (CDCSS) posted letters on its website stating that previously established fathers, such as defendant, had until December 31, 2006 to file a motion to set aside judgment of paternity; and 3) defendant relied on those letters in filing his motion on December 29, 2006.

[12/02] Huschke v. Slater
In a matter involving an order for defendant attorney to pay a discovery sanction, motion to dismiss appeal is granted and court imposes monetary sanctions payable to the courts on defendant's counsel where: 1) the dispute between the parties was resolved by a settlement agreement; and 2) defendant's counsel's violation of rule 8.244 was not just unsatisfactorily explained and unreasonable, but was also injurious to the court, other parties, and taxpayers.

More...

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[12/02] Huschke v. Slater
In a matter involving an order for defendant attorney to pay a discovery sanction, motion to dismiss appeal is granted and court imposes monetary sanctions payable to the courts on defendant's counsel where: 1) the dispute between the parties was resolved by a settlement agreement; and 2) defendant's counsel's violation of rule 8.244 was not just unsatisfactorily explained and unreasonable, but was also injurious to the court, other parties, and taxpayers.

[11/24] BNSF Ry. Co. v. Bhd. of Maint. of Way Employees
In a labor dispute in which defendant-union sought the production of certain documents by plaintiff-employer, vacatur of National Railroad Adjustment Board's (NRAB) order requiring production of documents is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) NRAB's failure to make a finding on whether plaintiff acted in violation of the CBA was not an interpretation of the CBA, and remand to NRAB was therefore required; 2) NRAB was within its jurisdiction to order the production of documents; and 3) NRAB did not violate its obligation to interpret the award upon the parties' request.

[11/10] Sherer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC
In a suit involving Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reversed where the arbitration clause in question bound plaintiff to arbitrate his dispute with defendant, even though defendant was not a signatory to the original agreement. (Revised opinion)

More...

Family Law

[12/02] County of Sacramento v. Llanes
Denial of defendant's motion to set aside a judgment of paternity as untimely is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) defendant's motion was timely; 2) plaintiff-county should have been estopped from asserting the motion was untimely because the California Department of Child Support Services (CDCSS) posted letters on its website stating that previously established fathers, such as defendant, had until December 31, 2006 to file a motion to set aside judgment of paternity; and 3) defendant relied on those letters in filing his motion on December 29, 2006.

[11/25] Tebo v. Tebo
In a suit alleging a civil conspiracy to have plaintiff involuntarily committed for mental treatment, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not produce evidence to show a agreement between the private and public defendants; 2) there was no factual dispute on the elements of a malicious-prosecution claim; 3) there was no basis for a per se negligence action against defendants-stepsons; 4) no material facts were in dispute as to whether defendants-doctors deprived plaintiff of due-process rights; 5) intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution claims against defendants-doctors were not supported by evidence; and 6) defendants-doctors were entitled to immunity on negligence claims.

[11/25] In re I.I.
Order terminating mother's parental rights to her children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 is affirmed over claims of error that the juvenile court's finding that the children were adoptable was not supported by substantial evidence because: 1) there was no evidence of any other approved homes that were willing to take the children or children with their characteristics; 2) the children had severe behavioral problems; and 3) the children were part of a large sibling set.

More...

Military

[12/02] Sussman v. Crawford
In a decision related to claim by plaintiffs-individuals and the Democratic Alliance of Orange County (the Alliance) against defendants-commander and U.S. Military Academy at West Point claiming that West Point's USMA Regulation 272 violated the First Amendment by denying plaintiffs permission to protest at Commencement, decision in favor of defendants-West Point is affirmed where: 1) West Point's ban on demonstrations within the cantonment was viewpoint-neutral, given that no protesters have been allowed to protest there since the speech policy's enactment; 2) The Alliance did not establish that West Point applied the policy in a discriminatory fashion to the detriment of either the Alliance or others, nor had it adduced evidence that denial of request to demonstrate was predicated on its political views; 3) West Point's "voluntary cessation" of the conduct in question mooted the Alliance's claim relating to the lack of a deadline; and 4) the court found no support for plaintiffs' contention that defendants' denial of the demonstration request constituted an arbitrary and capricious application of West Point's speech policy.

[11/28] Armann v. McKean
In a habeas proceeding, a district court order granting petitioner an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he was mentally incompetent on the day of his plea and sentencing before a military court-martial is reversed where, when a federal civilian court reviews a habeas corpus petition of a servicemember convicted in the military courts, the court must deny relief provided that the military courts gave full and fair consideration to the claim or claims asserted in the habeas petition.

[11/12] Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc.
In an action brought by environmental groups claiming that the Navy's use of a particular type of sonar during training exercises in the waters off southern California causes serious injuries to marine mammals, a preliminary injunction against the Navy is vacated to the extent requested where: 1) although the Court does not discount plaintiffs' ecological, scientific, and recreational interests in marine mammals, such interests are plainly outweighed by the Navy's need to conduct realistic training exercises to ensure that it is able to neutralize the threat posed by enemy submarines; and 2) consequently, the district court abused its discretion in imposing the restrictions at issue on the Navy.

More...