Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[08/20] Boschetto v. Hansing
The sale of one automobile via the eBay website, without more, does not provide sufficient "minimum contacts" to establish jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in the forum state.

[08/20] Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI
In a case involving, inter alia, whether right of first refusal agreements between a publisher of advertising tools and packaged goods companies violate California antitrust and tort law, judgment in the matter is affirmed primarily as the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

[08/20] Soto-Lebron v. Federal Express Corp.
In a matter brought by former employee against defendant FedEx following his termination, grant of FedEx's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the slander and libel claims is affirmed where: 1) the evidence introduced in support of the slander claim "does not rise to more than informal rumors" circulating among employees, for which FedEx cannot be held liable; and 2) there was sufficient evidence to support liability for libel. Case is remanded for new trial on damages for the libel claim where admission of irrelevant evidence tainted the jury's damage calculation and that taint was not cured by remittitur. Denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is reversed where former employee-plaintiff did not introduce any evidence suggesting that a subsequent employer or potential employer treated him adversely as a result of the defamatory statements made by FedEx.

[08/19] Joyce v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
In a suit by shareholders of a telecommunications company alleging that defendant, while advising the company during its acquisition by another company, failed to advise plaintiffs on minimizing their exposure to financial losses, grant of a motion to dismiss is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) plaintiffs were bringing a direct action on their own behalf, not a derivative one on behalf of the corporation, and to that extent had standing; but 2) plaintiffs' constructive fraud claim required them to allege that defendant owed them a fiduciary duty, but no such duty never arose.

[08/19] King v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co.
In a malicious prosecution suit alleging that defendant fired plaintiff without probable cause to believe that she had stolen train tickets, denial of plaintiff's discovery motion and summary judgment for defendants are affirmed where: 1) a determination by the System Board of Adjustment that plaintiff had stolen from defendant did not preclude litigation of that question in the context of the malicious prosecution suit; but 2) plaintiff failed to produce evidence of the date on which defendant had filed a criminal complaint against her, and thus would not be able to prove her claim that defendant lacked probable cause at the time of the filing.

More...

Professional Malpractice

[08/15] US v. Chube
In the prosecution of two doctors for illegitimately prescribing the painkiller OxyContin, convictions for unlawful distribution of controlled substances and defrauding a health benefit program are affirmed, and sentences vacated and remanded, where: 1) the testimony of two physician expert witnesses as to violations of the standards of medical care was properly allowed, and did not go so far as to offer an impermissible opinion on defendants' subjective intent; and 2) under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applicable to judicial findings of relevant conduct during sentencing, the government's evidence did not show that all of defendants' prescribing activities should be included in relevant conduct calculations.

[08/15] CenTra, Inc. v. Estrin
In a suit against a law firm for damages, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and legal malpractice, summary judgment for the law firm is reversed where: 1) plaintiff established genuine issues of material fact regarding not only whether it impliedly consented to a conflict of interest, but also whether it could even consent to the conflict in the first instance; and 2) the district court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment prior to discovery.

[08/11] McIntosh v. Partridge
In a suit by a dentist dismissed from his position at a state-run home after his return from active military duty, summary judgment for defendant-employer is affirmed in part, and vacated with claims dismissed in part, where: 1) no federal jurisdiction existed to hear plaintiff's Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) claim, as a USERRA claim against the state as an employer was required to be brought in state court; 2) evidence considered at the summary judgment phase was admissible; 3) due process claims against defendant-supervisor in his individual capacity failed because plaintiff did not allege a constitutional due-process violation and because supervisor was entitled to a defense of qualified immunity; 4) due process claims against supervisor in his official capacity were barred by sovereign immunity; and 5) a state-law defamation claim was properly dismissed based on defendant-supervisor's official immunity.

[08/08] Auto Servs. Co. v. KPMG, LLP
In an action brought by a corporation engaged in marketing vehicle warranties against defendants alleging professional-negligence in the preparation of certain financial documents, dismissal of the claims and denial of reconsideration are affirmed where, although the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration as untimely under a local rule, the error was harmless.

[08/07] Lockerby v. Sierra
In the bankruptcy context, an intentional breach of contract cannot give rise to nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(6) unless it is accompanied by conduct that constitutes a tort under state law.

More...