Case Summaries

Remedies

[09/03] Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.
In property owners' class action suit against the facility operators of a former nuclear weapons plant under the Price-Anderson Act (PAA), alleging trespass claims arising from the release of plutonium particles onto their properties, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in awarding over $926 million is reversed and remanded where: 1) district court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331; 2) because the jury was not properly instructed on an essential element of plaintiffs' PAA claims, the verdict must be set aside and the case remanded; 3) the issue of whether federal nuclear safety standards preempt state tort standards of care under the PAA is remanded; 4) the Colorado Supreme Court would not permit recovery premised on a finding that an interference, in the form of anxiety or fear of health risks, is "substantial" and "unreasonable" unless that anxiety is supported by some scientific evidence, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise; 5) defendants failed to establish that any of the state of federal standards referenced in their proposed jury instructions overcome the general rule that the jury must determine whether a given interference is "unreasonable" by weighing the harm against the utility of the interference; 6) on remand, plaintiffs are required to prove the plutonium contamination caused "physical damage to the property" in order to prevail on their trespass claims; and 7) district court did not err in instructing the jury that it could award punitive damages in the case.

[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.

[08/25] Babler v. Futhey
In plaintiffs' suit against the United Transportation Union (UTU) Executive Board and its officers, arising from a power struggle among UTU international officers relating to the UTU's proposed merger with the brought under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), district court's grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the plaintiffs have a high probability of success on the merits of their LMRDA claim; 2) the district court did not clearly err in finding that plaintiffs face a threat of irreparable harm caused by their removal from office by the executive board; 3) the district court did not clearly err in determining that the harm to defendants and others is outweighed by the threat of substantial harm to UTU members caused by the potential chilling effect on their willingness to exercise their LMRDA rights; 4) the public interest weighs in favor of protecting plaintiffs' individual rights as set forth in the LMRDA; and 5) the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.

[08/25] Advanced Body Care Solutions, LLC v. Thione Int'l., Inc.
In an action arising out of a contract that required a company to make minimum purchases of products in exchange for an exclusive license to market and distribute them, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant's shipment of the defective ampoules breached the entire Licensing Agreement; 2) because the Licensing Agreement did not clearly express that the listed remedies were the exclusive remedies available to defendant, regardless of what the parties' intentions may have been, the Agreement did not effectively limit defendant's remedies; and 3) the jury's verdict, which did not exceed the amount of defendant's expert's calculations, was neither against the great weight of the evidence nor excessive.

[08/24] Bessemer Trust Co., N.A. v. Branin
In an action alleging that defendant illegally solicited his former clients at plaintiff, the Second Circuit certifies the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: "What degree of participation in a new employer's solicitation of a former employer's client by a voluntary seller of that client's good will constitutes improper solicitation?"

[08/24] Rexam Beverage Can Co. v. Bolger
In a commercial landlord-tenant dispute involving at a warehouse with a leaky roof, the replacement of which both landlord and tenant denied was their responsibility, judgment in favor of defendant-landlord on his counterclaim on several Illinois state law grounds is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) a conclusion that tenant was contractually bound to replace the roof of the warehouse is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded; 2) district court's award of $405,470 in damages for tenant's failure to replace the roof is affirmed; and 3) district court's Holdover Statute award of $1,156,232.24 is vacated and remanded for a determination of the fair market net rental value of the property and the assessment of a penalty equal to double that value for the duration of the tenant's holdover.

[08/23] Fresh Coat, Inc. v. K-2, Inc.

[08/23] Ted Jacob Eng'g Group, Inc. v. Ratcliff Architects
In a subcontractor's suit against defendant-architects for breach of contract and other causes of action in connection with a city hospital renovation and expansion project, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where: 1) in the absence of a negotiated agreement upon price, and assuming no contrary contractual provision applies, a subcontractor may still pursue a claim seeking a judicial determination of additional fees when it performs work demanded of it by the general contractor constituting a material change in the scope of work defined under the contract; and 2) if good faith negotiation between the parties fails to result in agreement on price, the subcontractor is not required to elect between the job and forfeiting its right of recovery if it elects to perform the required work.

[08/17] McKenna v. Honsowetz
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against two police officers who responded to a 911 report that plaintiff was having a medical seizure and and thereafter allegedly violated his Fourth Amendment rights, district court's denial of defendants' motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and reduction of an award for pain and suffering from $275,000 to $10,000 are affirmed where: 1) whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity depends on whether they acted in a law-enforcement capacity or in an emergency-medical-response capacity when engaging in the conduct that plaintiff claimed violated the Fourth Amendment, and here, the view of the facts undoubtedly supports a finding that the officers acted in a law-enforcement capacity; 2) the record contained ample evidence to support the determination that the officers unreasonably searched the home and seized plaintiff; and 3) plaintiff's appeal of the reduction in the award is denied as the Supreme Court has clearly stated that a plaintiff cannot appeal a remittitur after he has accepted it.

[08/17] US v. Billingsley
In an action for violation of the Fair Housing Act claiming the wrongful enforcement of restrictive covenants, a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff is vacated where the Anti-Injunction Act was applicable in this case and the government could not avail itself of the exception for the U.S. when it sought an injunction because of 42 U.S.C. section 3612’s explicit limitations on the remedial powers of the federal courts.

[08/17] Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co.
In a breach of contract action, the district court's order striking plaintiff's claim for lost profits is reversed where Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not authorize a district court to strike a claim for damages on the ground that such damages were precluded as a matter of law.

Back to Main