Case Summaries

Environmental Law

[05/14] Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Rey
In a suit challenging a decision by the United States Forest Service to permit logging in accordance with certain changes made in 2004 by the USFS in the relevant forest, denial of a preliminary injunction against the USFS is reversed and three projects preliminarily enjoined where the district court abused its discretion in: 1) concluding that the USFS complied with NEPA's requirement to "[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives" with regard to a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS); and 2) in its balancing of equities.

[05/13] Beazer E., Inc. v. Mead Corp.
In an on-going contribution claim against defendant under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), wherein the district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and certified the question of whether certain caselaw precedent limited subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's contribution claims under section 113(f)(1), the circuit court finds that: 1) the "civil action" requirement in section 113(f) is an element of the claim, and is not jurisdictional; 2) the district court retained its original jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues in this case; and 3) defendant waived its challenge to the applicability of section 113(f)(1).

More...

Admiralty

[05/13] Price v. Connolly-Pac. Co.
In an action brought by a "commuter seaman" claiming entitlement to "maintenance and cure" from his employer under maritime laws after he allegedly contracted West Nile encephalitis while working on a ship, judgment for employer is affirmed over claims that: 1) under the Shipowner's Liability Convention of 1936, a seaman only needs to prove that an illness incurred, aggravated or manifested itself during the period of employment instead of while in the service of a vessel; and 2) even if a commuter seaman is not on call or engaged in an activity generally considered in the service of a vessel, maintenance and cure is required if an illness is contracted while the seaman is participating in an on-shore activity which benefits the employer.

[05/08] Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)

More...

Commercial Law

[05/13] N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica
In an action brought by a developer against the city of Pacifica involving a proposed condominium project, dismissal of developer's substantive due process claim is affirmed, but an order holding city liable for an equal protection violation is reversed and the resultant damages awards vacated where: 1) the developer was not entitled to judgment on an equal protection claim, as the city did not intentionally treat it differently from any other developer; and 2) a due process claim should not be resurrected because developer did not allege any irrational delay in the city's approval of its permits.

[05/13] United Stars Indus., Inc. v. Plastech Engineered Prods., Inc.
In an action over monies owed, judgment in favor of plaintiff and sanctions imposed against defendant's attorneys are affirmed where: 1) the compromise that was reached after the initial dispute over pricing and monies owed included defendant's overcharge claims; 2) the contract allowed plaintiff to pass on an increase in costs due to the use of additional materials other than nickel through a surcharge; 3) defendant was liable to pay for the entire cost of the materials bought even though some of it was lost during the production process; and 4) the district judge did not abuse her discretion by sanctioning defendant's lawyers for making unsupported allegations during litigation.

More...

Class Actions

[05/13] Bufil v. Dollar Fin. Group, Inc.
In a purported class action against an employer alleging violation of meal and rest break labor laws, a judgment entered in favor of employer along with a denial of plaintiff's motion for class certification are reversed where the trial court erred in: 1) concluding that issue preclusion principles should bar plaintiff's request for class certification under applicable precedents; and 2) finding that individual issues predominated over common issues, class members were unascertainable, and a class action was not the superior method for resolving the litigation.

[05/13] Estate of Pew v. Cardarelli
In an appeal primarily addressing whether a claim fell within the exception to the Class Action Fairness Act's ("CAFA") grant of original and appellate jurisdiction for class actions which solely involve claims concerning certain rights and duties related to any security, the circuit court: 1) rules that the suit at hand does not fall within such exception to CAFA jurisdiction, and thus it has authority to accept an appeal from a remand order; 2) grants defendant's petition for leave to appeal; and 3) reverses the district court's remand order on the merits.

More...

Workers' Comp

[05/06] Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.

[04/29] Ramirez v. Murdick
In an action wherein plaintiff filed a Huffman claim seeking liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs for the late payment of worker's compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Superior Court did not err in its interpretation and application of Workers' Compensation Act, 19 Del. C. sections 2357 and 2362(c); and 2) although the Superior Court erred in converting employer's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless.

More...