Case Summaries

Environmental Law

[06/21] Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms
In an action challenging the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) decision to approve the unconditional deregulation of Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA), a variety of alfalfa genetically engineered to tolerate the herbicide Roundup, the Ninth Circuit's affirmance of judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) plaintiffs had standing to seek injunctive relief, and defendants had standing to seek the Court's review of the Ninth Circuit's judgment affirming the entry of such relief; and 2) the district court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the planting of RRA pending the agency's completion of its detailed environmental review.

[06/17] Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC
In a suit brought by fishermen against a defendant for negligently spilling pollutants and hazardous contaminants into a pond, the judgment of the Second District is quashed as commercial fishermen have both a statutory and common law cause of action for economic losses proximately caused by the negligent release of pollutants despite the fact that the fishermen do not own any property damages by the pollution.

More...

Admiralty

[06/25] Crescent Towing & Salvage Co. v. Chios Beauty MV
In an action for damages sustained when defendant's ship collided with plaintiffs' barges and tugboats during Hurricane Katrina, partial judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where the district court did not clearly err in its finding of a predicted "direct hit" on New Orleans by the hurricane, its factual findings based on this finding, and the ultimate finding of negligence to the extent that it relied upon this finding. However, the matter is remanded where the district court needed to enter an order setting the total amount of recovery plaintiffs could recover in rem.

[06/21] Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp.
In an action based on the alleged destruction of goods being shipped, the Ninth Circuit's reversal of the district court's dismissal of the action based on the fact that the parties' contract designated a Tokyo court as the venue for any dispute is reversed where, because the Carmack Amendment does not apply to a shipment originating overseas under a single through bill of lading, the parties' agreement to litigate these cases in Tokyo is binding.

More...

Commercial Law

[06/28] Bilski v. Kappos
In a patent application seeking protection for a claimed invention explaining how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market could protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. section 101; 2) Section 101 precluded a reading of the term "process" that would categorically exclude business methods; and 3) even though petitioners' application was not categorically outside of section 101 under the two atextual approaches the Court rejected today, that did not mean it was a "process" under section 101.

[06/25] Rathborne Land Co. v. Ascent Engy., Inc.
In an action for breach of defendant's obligations to reasonably develop and explore a leased parcel of oil, gas, and mineral land, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff's letter to defendant met the La. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 31:136 demand requirement; and 2) district court did not clearly err in concluding that plaintiff would have been able to lease the disputed acreage more than once if it had been able to seismically survey the parcel prior to 2006. However, the judgment is vacated in part where neither the district court nor plaintiff could show an adequate ground -- indeed, any relevant precedent -- for awarding consequential damages for lost leasing and seismic revenues on the entire parcel.

More...

Class Actions

[06/25] Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins., Co. v. Bezich
A petition for permission to appeal, arising from the district court's remand of plaintiff's class action lawsuit against an insurer for breach of contract claims on the basis that CAFA's exception to federal jurisdiction for the action applied, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiff's claim "related to the rights, duties,...and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to...a security," as defined in the Securities Act of 1933.

[06/24] Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assoc. Inc.
In a suit brought by about 4000 current and former employees against an employer, claiming that the company, which provides security guard services throughout Southern California, denied meal and rest breaks and failed to pay for overtime, trial court's denial of their motion for class certification is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) order denying the motion for class certification as to the meal break class and the rest break class is affirmed as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding common issues of law and fact did not predominate over individual issues; and 2) order denying the motion for class certification as to the overtime-pay class is reversed and remanded.

More...

Workers' Comp

[06/24] Bifulco v. Patient Bus. & Fin. Serv., Inc.
In plaintiff's wrongful termination suit against her former employer, Fifth District's reversal of trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as workers' compensation retaliation claims brought against the state under section 440.205 are not subject to the presuit notice requirements of section 768.28(6)

[06/22] Hawaii Stevedores, Inc. v. Ogawa
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board (BRB) affirming an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) grant of disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is granted in part where: 1) the mere fact that an expert witness talked with a party's lawyer and then altered his or her opinion language, though it might be considered relevant, did not require a factfinder to find that expert witness was other than credible; and 2) the ALJ's finding of the maximum medical improvement date was not supported by substantial evidence. However, the petition is denied in part where: 1) the ALJ's finding that petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating prejudice was supported by substantial evidence, and respondent's late notice was properly excused; and 2) respondent's stroke qualified as a compensable injury under the Longshore Act.

More...