Legal News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[12/01] Dunn v. Matatall
In an action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging that defendants-officers violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force when plaintiff's leg was broken during his arrest, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where defendants committed no constitutional violation as it could not be said that their conduct was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.

[11/28] US ex rel. Burlbaw v. Orenduff
In an action under the False Claims Act (FCA) alleging that defendants, past and present high-ranking administrators of New Mexico State University (NMSU), falsely certified that NMSU was a "minority institution" eligible for Department of Defense set-aside contract grants, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the circuit court does not address whether qualified immunity is a viable defense in an FCA action; and 2) relators failed to introduce sufficient evidence for a jury to find that any defendant knowingly misrepresented NMSU's eligibility as a minority institution.

[11/26] Paiva v. Nichols
Order denying three anti-SLAPP motions to strike brought on behalf of defendants is reversed where: 1) the prior suit was unquestionably protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute; 2) there was probable cause to initiate and maintain the prior suit; and 3) plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing a probability that he would prevail in his malicious prosecution action.

[11/26] Schaffer v. City and County of San Francisco
In a case against the city and county for violation of plaintiffs civil rights in connection with arrest and prosecution, judgment granting defendant-city's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion to strike plaintiff's complaint is affirmed over claims that: 1) the court erred in concluding that defendants' statements, made in the course and scope of their duties as police officers, were not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute; and 2) court erred when it did not grant plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint to state a claim under 42 United States Code section 1983.

[11/26] Estate of Bennett
In a suit against defendant-police officers for the shooting death of decedent following gunfire initiated by decedent, judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly granted defendant-officer's motion to dismiss where the estate failed to show a deprivation of a protected interest in life, liberty, or property; 2) the district court did not err in dismissal by judgment on the pleadings because plaintiff-estate did not meet its pleading requirements, plaintiff-estate waived its equal protection claim, and there was no property interest that was allegedly taken to support the takings claim; and 3) grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants was proper.

[11/24] O'Bryan v. Holy See
In a class action suit against defendant-Holy See for claims of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic clergy, partial grant of defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' response to the defendant's First Amendment challenges could not preserve plaintiffs' own Establishment Clause claim; 2) plaintiffs waived their constitutional challenges to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA); 3) the district court correctly applied the FSIA's burden shifting process; 4) the portions of plaintiffs' claims that were based upon the conduct of bishops, archbishops and Holy See personnel while supervising allegedly abusive clergy satisfied all four requirements of the tortious act exception; 5) plaintiffs' claims of violation of customary international law of human rights, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty should not be dismissed for 'arising out of...misrepresentation [or] deceit'; and 6) the last two claims advanced by plaintiffs were dismissed for arising out of misrepresentation or deceit.

[11/21] Sonat Exploration Co. v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.
In an indemnity suit arising from an oil-well explosion, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) the parties' contract did not specify that Louisiana law, rather than Texas law, was to be applicable; 2) the specific circumstances of the contract at issue indicated that Louisiana law should apply; 3) because intervenor-insurer raised the choice-of-law issue on behalf of defendant-insured, defendant had not waived the issue; and 4) remand was necessary for a determination of whether there was negligence or strict liability.

[11/21] Dale v. Poston
In a federal prisoner's suit alleging Eighth Amendment violations by prison employees who allegedly failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where there was no evidence that any of the defendants were aware of facts from which they could draw an inference of substantial harm.

[11/20] Briggs Ave. LLC v. Ins. Corp. of Hannover
In a declaratory-judgment action seeking to compel defendant-insurer to defend a personal-injury action brought against plaintiff-insured, upon a question certified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the court answers that a liability insurer is entitled to disclaim coverage when the insured, because of its own error in failing to update the address it had listed with the Secretary of State, did not comply with a policy condition requiring timely notice of a lawsuit.

[11/14] SSP Partners v. Gladstrong Invs. (USA) Corp.
In a products-liability suit over an allegedly defective butane lighter, in which a seller and supplier of the lighters sought indemnity from the alleged manufacturer, summary judgment for manufacturer is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the alleged manufacturer, as a mere importer of the product, was not a "manufacturer" for purposes of statutory indemnity; 2) corporations cannot be held liable for each other's obligations merely because they are part of a single business enterprise; 3) "apparent" manufacturers of a product are not subject to statutory indemnification obligations; but 4) remand was necessary to consider whether the apparent manufacturer was at fault for facilitating the sale of the defective product, and whether common-law indemnity would therefore apply.

More...

Legal Malpractice

[11/25] Continental Casualty Co. v. Stradford
In an action to determine whether plaintiff-insurer timely disclaimed coverage in defense of two dental malpractice actions on the basis of defendant's non-cooperation, grant of summary judgment to defendants is reversed where issues of fact remain with respect to the timeliness of plaintiff's disclaimer.

[11/14] In Re Buster
In a suit alleging negligence by a nursing home, in which plaintiff submitted an expert report signed by a nurse, and then sought leave to cure this deficiency by submitting a different report signed by a physician, petition for mandamus relief is granted where the appeals court erred in holding that a new report from a different expert was not allowed.

[11/13] Mosier v. Callister, Nebeker & McCullough
In a suit brought by the trustee of the bankruptcy estate of a nonprofit organization against a law firm and two of its attorneys alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and civil conspiracy, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err by imputing the conduct of certain offers to the nonprofit; 2) it correctly applied the doctrine of in pari delicto in holding as a matter of law that the nonprofit's misconduct, as evidenced by the actions of its officers and directors, was greater than defendants' fault in failing to counsel the nonprofit; and 3) there was no error in applying the doctrine against a trustee in bankruptcy.

[11/13] Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hosp.
In a medical malpractice action against hospital and doctor, petition for writ of supersedeas directing the trial court to reduce the amount of its appeal bond is denied where: 1) the lump sum present value of the judgment against defendant-hospital was the "amount of the judgment" for the purpose of calculating the undertaking required to stay the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1; and 2) the trial court properly set the amount of defendant-hospital's appeal bond at 1.5 times the lump sum present value of plaintiff's judgment against it.

[11/13] Teague v. Kent Gen. Hosp.
In a medical-malpractice case, denials of plaintiff's motion for a new trial and for reargument of the exclusion of medical expert testimony are affirmed where: 1) defendant made a timely motion for judgment as a matter of law after plaintiff's expert failed on direct examination to establish the relevant standard of care; and 2) the trial judge did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by declining to allow additional voir dire of plaintiff's expert via telephone.

[10/31] Iowa Physicians' Clinic Med. Found. v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin
In a suit in which plaintiff-policyholder sought damages in tort for the alleged bad-faith refusal by defendant-insurer to settle a malpractice claim against an insured doctor who was plaintiff's employee, judgment for defendant is affirmed where under state law, a bad-faith claim was available only to an insured, not to an uninsured policyholder.

[10/29] Jensen v. Phillips Screw Co.
Sanctions order against law firm for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings in a class action case are vacated in part and remanded where: 1) sanctions under section 1927 were not available for any alleged failure on appellant-law firm's part to vet plaintiff or investigate the bona fides of his claim; 2) the district court abused its discretion in reaching the sanctions determination with respect to the phase of litigation the case was in; 3) appellant-law firm's response to defendant's motion could not be termed a "concession" by the law firm to name recruited individual as a plaintiff; and 4) court's determination of sanctionable conduct in connection with the abortive filing of the motion to substitute the named plaintiff and putative class representative must be set aside because its precursor findings were set aside.

[10/27] Williams v. Russ
Dismissal of legal malpractice complaint against defendant-attorney and his law firm is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff allowed the destruction of most of his client files after obtaining them from defendant pursuant to a discovery request; and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed a terminating sanction for that misconduct.

[10/16] Tydings v. Greenfield, Stein & Senior, LLP
In a legal malpractice action by the former trustee of a grantor trust against the law firm that represented her in a proceeding to compel an accounting, reversal of dismissal on collateral estoppel grounds is affirmed where: 1) collateral estoppel does not prevent relitigation of a ruling that was an alternative basis for a trial-level decision, where an appellate court affirmed the decision without addressing that ruling; and 2) when a trustee resigns, the statute of limitations governing an action to compel her to account runs from the date the trusteeship is turned over to a successor trustee.

[10/10] Johnson v. Bagley
In a conviction for aggravated murder and sentence of death, petition for habeas corpus is granted where: 1) by failing to interview defendant's mother, defendant's attorneys failed to uncover two critical categories of information that established "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."; and 2) the failure to uncover those pieces of evidence, established prejudice.

More...