Case Summaries
Contracts
Tax Law
Commercial Law
International Law
Contracts
[11/18]
Dealer Computer Svcs., Inc. v. Dub Herring Ford
Following an arbitration decision granting award to defendant-dealerships and finding arbitration provisions found in various contracts between defendant-dealerships and plaintiff-computer software and hardware vendor did not preclude class arbitration, district court judgment in favor of defendant-dealerships is vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss where the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitration award because the matter was not ripe for judicial review.
[11/17]
Native Am. Distrib. v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co.
In an breach of contract action between a distributor and an enterprise of a tribe, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed where: 1) the tribal enterprise has not waived its immunity; 2) the enterprise was not equitably estopped from asserting its immunity due to the misrepresentations of its managers; 3) the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction; and 4) the plaintiffs failed to allege a viable civil conspiracy claim against the individual defendants in their individual capacities.
[11/17]
The Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Holcim (US), Inc.
In a claim for contractual indemnification related to settlement of a tort claim, the court certified the following questions: 1) whether, under Alabama law, an indemnitee may enforce an indemnification provision and recover damages from an indemnitor resulting from the combined or concurrent fault or negligence of the indemnitee and indemnitor; and 2) whether, under Alabama law, a court may look behind (or beyond) the pleadings (in particular, the complaint) of an underlying tort action in determining the application of an indemnification provision between an indemnitor and indemnitee.
More...
Tax Law
[11/14]
H&R Block, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
Class actions filed against nationwide tax preparer H&R Block asserting a variety of statutory and common law claims arising out of H&R's Refund Anticipation Loan (RAL) program are excluded from "prior acts" coverage under professional liability "claims made" insurance policies because other class actions asserting similar claims were filed prior to the policy periods.
[11/14]
US v. Gardellini
Sentence for filing a false tax return is affirmed, despite falling below the guideline range, where the sentencing court properly considered all of the sentencing factors and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence.
[11/14]
US v. Anderson
Sentence for tax evasion and fraud is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there was no ex post facto violation in the sentencing of defendant using a later version of the sentencing guidelines, since the sentence would have been the same even had he been sentenced under prior guidelines; 2) the term of imprisonment imposed was reasonable; and 3) the district court incorrectly ruled that it lacked authority to order restitution to the federal government.
More...
Commercial Law
[11/14]
Cadles of Grassy Meadows II, LLC v. Goldner
Petition for panel rehearing granted, prior opinion withdrawn, and matter remanded for further proceedings in light of Kerlin v. Sauceda, 05-0653 (Tex. October 10, 2008).
[11/12]
Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg.
In an action alleging, inter alia, copyright and trademark infringement involving the original and remade motion pictures "Gone in 60 Seconds", as well as products relating to the film, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where the district court erred in: 1) refusing to use extrinsic evidence submitted by plaintiffs to aid in its interpretation of an agreement between the parties, finding that such evidence did not show that the agreement was reasonably susceptible to plaintiffs' interpretation; 2) interpreting disputed language in an agreement between plaintiff and a non-party corporation; 3) applying the wrong legal standard in finding that plaintiffs did not have statutory standing to assert trademark infringement and unfair competition claims; and 4) concluding that plaintiffs did not have statutory or Article III standing to assert claims for declaratory relief.
[11/12]
Hoopes v. Dolan
In a suit by plaintiff-commercial tenant against his landlord for exclusive parking rights under his lease, a judgment for defendants despite a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the trial court erred in disregarding the jury's verdict when fashioning equitable relief founded on the same evidence and the same operative facts as the verdict; 2) however, the defense of equitable estoppel was a matter within the exclusive province of the trial judge and it raised legal and factual issues undecided by the jury; and 3) while the trial court should have considered the equitable defense first, the order of trial was within the court's discretion and did not divest the judge of his duty to determine applicability of equitable estoppel.
More...
International Law
[11/17]
Manco Contracting Co. v. Bezdikian
In an action by a Qatari company seeking to domesticate its Qatari judgment against defendant, reversal of judgment against defendant is affirmed where: 1) if a foreign nation's rule is that judgments are final even though an appeal is pending, a judgment may be recognized in California despite an appeal; and 2) if the foreign nation's rule is that judgments are not final while an appeal is pending, a judgment on appeal cannot be recognized in California.
[11/12]
Balachova v. Mukasey
Review of decision directing removal of husband and wife petitioners to Russia and denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture is dismissed in part, granted in part, and the order of removal is vacated where: 1) wife-petitioner's claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; 2) there were numerous errors in assessing husband-petitioner's applications for asylum and withholding of removal; 3) IJ's conclusion that husband-petitioner must have participated in the stated abuse because he equivocated the meaning of "rape" was not supported by substantial evidence; and 4) wife-petitioner may be eligible for derivative relief based on her husband's application.
[11/04]
Emergency Coalition to Defend Educ. Travel v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury
In a suit challenging the Office of Foreign Asset Control's amendments to regulations governing educational travel to Cuba, dismissal of all claims is affirmed where: 1) at least one plaintiff had standing to challenge the regulations, and there was therefore appellate jurisdiction; but 2) the travel restrictions were content-neutral and did not violate plaintiffs-professors' First Amendment rights; and 3) there was no violation of plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment right to travel internationally.
More...
|