Case Summaries

Environmental Law

[06/22] US v. Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers
In a dispute involving enforcement of the Clean Water Act, district court's judgment against defendant is affirmed where: 1) the court did not err in finding defendant did not have standing to intervene in an action to enforce the Clean Water Act against the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, as defendant did not adequately allege that it would suffer a concrete and particularized injury, nor did it establish that its injury was fairly traceable to the challenged action and would likely to be redressed by a favorable decision; and 2) defendant did not have the right to intervene under either Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1) or 24(a)(2).

[06/22] Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
In an action against the Army Corps of Engineers challenging the Corps' grant of a permit to a mining company to discharge waste materials, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed where the Corps, not the EPA, had the authority to permit the discharge, and the Corps' interpretation of Clean Water Act regulations was entitled to deference.

More...

Admiralty

[06/26] TAG/ICIB Services, Inc. v. Sedeco Servicio de Descuento en Compras
District court judgment against defendant for overdue demurrage owed to plaintiff is reversed where: 1) Puerto Rico Commerce Code Article 947's 180-day limitations period applies to plaintiff's claim for overdue demurrage charges on international shipments to Puerto Rico; and 2) the court did not err in failing to apply the laches presumption, as the parties offered scant facts relevant to such an inquiry and the parties consented to judgment based on the stipulation.

[06/26] Compania Naviera Joanna S.A. v. Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster NV
In a tort action arising out of a ship collision, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the District Court did not abuse its discretion in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, because the accident occurred in Chinese waters and proceedings were already underway in a Chinese court.

More...

Commercial Law

[07/01] Arnold's Wines, Inc. v. Boyle
District court order granting defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment is affirmed where sections of the New York Alcoholic Beverage Control Laws banning direct sales to consumers by out-of-state liquor retailers and instituting a three-tier system for the regulation of alcoholic beverages evenhandedly regulate the importation and distribution of liquor within the state and do not discriminate against out-of-state producers in violation of the Commerce Clause, and thus are a valid exercise of the state's rights under the Twenty-first Amendment.

[06/26] TAG/ICIB Services, Inc. v. Sedeco Servicio de Descuento en Compras
District court judgment against defendant for overdue demurrage owed to plaintiff is reversed where: 1) Puerto Rico Commerce Code Article 947's 180-day limitations period applies to plaintiff's claim for overdue demurrage charges on international shipments to Puerto Rico; and 2) the court did not err in failing to apply the laches presumption, as the parties offered scant facts relevant to such an inquiry and the parties consented to judgment based on the stipulation.

More...

Class Actions

[07/01] Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman
Trial court judgment sustaining the demurrers of Class Counsel is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff is collaterally estopped from pursuing a malpractice claim against Class Counsel based on the theory that counsel breached their duty of care to the class by failing to negotiate a different settlement notice procedure than that approved by the trial court in the prior action; and 2) plaintiff's argument that Class Counsel breached their duty of care by failing to contact him specifically once they knew or should have known that he had not submitted a timely claim form fails, as there is no authority imposing such an obligation on counsel in a class action suit. The court's award of sanctions to plaintiff's former employer Allstate under Code of Civil Procedure sec. 128.7 is reversed where Allstate did not satisfy the safe harbor requirements of the statute in seeking monetary sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel.

[06/30] Garcia-Rubiera v. Calderon
In an action challenging amendments to Puerto Rico's Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Act, district court judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the court erred in dismissing plaintiff's takings clause claim, as their takings claim for declaratory and injunctive relief is ripe despite the failure to utilize Procedure No. 96 to pursue their administrative remedy; 2) although plaintiffs have a sufficient property interest in the duplicate premiums for purposes of due process, further proceedings are necessary to determine whether the transfers to the Secretary of Treasury constitutes a sufficient deprivation of that property interest to require notice under the Due Process Clause; 3) the court properly dismissed plaintiff's equal protection claim as neither law is directed to a protected class, and the Commonwealth's action is rational and serves the legitimate end of balancing the budget; 4) the court properly granted qualified immunity to defendants; and 5) the court erred in denying class certification as plaintiffs satisfied all the requirements necessary to certify a class.

More...

Workers' Comp

[06/11] Simpson v. Empire Truck Lines, Inc.
In an action arising out of a truck accident under the Texas Workers Compensation Act (TWCA), judgment for Defendant is affirmed where the driver of the truck was not Defendant's statutory employee under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, and thus Defendant was not vicariously liable under the TWCA.

[06/08] Zaragoza v. Ibarra
In an civil action brought by a worker against a homeowner, trial court's grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's injury does not fall within the exclusive purview of the workers' compensation laws despite his employer's status as an unlicensed contractor as defendant had not worked 52 hours in the 90 days prior to the date of the injury specified in Labor Code sec. 3352(h); and 2) defendant was not negligent, as plaintiff's injury was entirely his own fault and there was no want of ordinary care taken by the plaintiff-homeowner.

More...