News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[09/01] Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In an action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and two Missouri police officers following an incident involving counterfeit money orders at a Raymore Wal-Mart store, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) given these undisputed facts, probable cause supported plaintiff's warrantless arrest; 2) attorney's fees were proper because plaintiff's continued prosecution of her false arrest claim against the officers in the face of the evidence upon discovery was unquestionably groundless and unreasonable; and 3) the record reflected no evidence of racial animus or hostility toward plaintiff.

[09/01] Sprinkles v. Associated Indem. Corp.
In plaintiffs' bad faith action against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, arising from an underlying suit against defendant and his employer for causing the death of plaintiffs' father in an automobile accident, trial court's judgment sustaining the insurer's demurrer is affirmed as, under the complaint and matters judicially noticed, the defendant-employee was an insured, rendering the automobile exclusion in the GCL policy applicable, and Fireman's Fund had no duty to defend the employer.

[08/31] Mader v. US
In an action against the U.S. under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging the Department of Veterans Affairs acted negligently in providing medical treatment to plaintiff's husband, dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed where a plaintiff meets the Act's jurisdictional prerequisites when she provides the relevant agency with: 1) sufficient information for the agency to investigate the claims; and 2) the amount of damages sought.

[08/30] Luo v. Mikel
In an action alleging serious injury sustained during an automobile accident within the meaning of New York Insurance Law section 5102(d), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where the district court's exercise of jurisdiction was proper. However, the order is vacated in part where, taken together with plaintiff's subjective evidence as to the impact of the injury on her functioning, plaintiff's medical evidence was sufficient to raise a question of fact issue as to serious injury pursuant to N.Y. Ins. Law section 5104(a).

[08/30] Meyers v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger
In plaintiff's occupational injury lawsuit against his employer, Amtrack, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to establish the required causation element of his FELA action is affirmed as, because plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the reports and testimony of his proffered causation experts were properly barred by the district court, and as such, plaintiff failed to raise genuine issues of material fact with respect to the causation element of his FELA claim.

More...

Remedies

[08/31] People v. Pacheco
In a prosecution of defendant for welfare fraud in violation of Welfare and Institutions Code section 10980(c)(2), trial court's order placing defendant on formal probation for a period of three years subject to various conditions and imposition of various fees and fines are modified and remanded where: 1) defendant's claims are not forfeited or waived on appeal; 2) there is no evidence of defendant's ability to pay the $100 in attorney fees, the $259.50 criminal justice administration fee, and the $64 per month probation supervision fee; 3) the order to pay attorney fees and the imposition of the monthly probation supervision fee are improper conditions of probation; 4) trial court's judgment is modified to reflect that the $20 court security fee is deleted as a condition of probation and is instead a separate order; and 5) trial court's judgment is modified to delete an unidentified $30 fee that the court did not impose.

[08/30] Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Savings Bank
In plaintiff's suit for breach of contract against defendant-bank for nonpayment of fees under the parties' Technology Outsourcing Agreement, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) an expert's testimony was both relevant and reliable; 2) district court correctly determined that plaintiff did not breach the Agreement's performance warranty and its duty of good faith; 3) district court did not err in concluding that any reliance by defendant on the alleged misrepresentations of plaintiff was not reasonable; 3) district court committed no reversible error in determining that defendant's fraud claims were without merit; 4) district court determined correctly that defendant's success on the in-house issue does not render it a "prevailing party" within the meaning of the contract; and 5) the district court acted within the bounds of its discretion in determining that no additional guarantee of reasonableness was required.

[08/30] Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Fin. Corp.
In plaintiff's suit against E*Trade Financial Corporation (E*Trade) for misappropriation of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, trial court's denial of plaintiff's request for award of reasonable royalties is reversed and remanded where: 1) given the jury's finding that E*Trade did not profit from its misappropriation of trade secrets, unjust enrichment is not "provable" within the meaning of section 3426.3; 2) since E*Trade had consistently and successfully taken the position that plaintiff's actual losses are not provable, E*Trade is estopped from arguing otherwise now; and 3) because neither actual loss nor unjust enrichment is provable, the trial court had discretion pursuant to section 3426.3(b) to order payment of a reasonable royalty.

[08/27] Gross v. Town of Cicero
In plaintiff's suit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for violations of equal protection and free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments against a town and related individuals for what he claimed was an unconstitutional firing, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) summary judgment was appropriate on plaintiff's equal protection, First Amendment, and civil rights conspiracy claims; 2) district court improperly granted summary judgment for defendant on its fiduciary duty claim as without some Illinois authority or any indication in the text, it cannot be concluded that the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC) statutes imposed a fiduciary duty on plaintiff; and 3) because defendant's judgment on liability is reversed, the $302,437.79 damages award to defendant cannot stand.

[08/26] Owen v. Harris Cty.
In an action against Harris County, Texas under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed, but a motion for return of a filing fee is granted, where: 1) the evidence of sexual harassment was more than sufficient to sustain the verdict, and given the particular procedural posture of the case, there was no reversible error in the manner and substance of the submission to the jury; and 2) no fee can be required for any amended notice of appeal, irrespective of whether it pertains to a post-judgment motion.

More...