News
Employment Practices
[07/22]
Elevated jobless claims point to weak labor market
[07/22]
Additional jobless benefits hinge on House vote
[07/19]
Obama to GOP: Restore jobless benefits
Labor
[07/28]
US military investigates contractor work force
[07/22]
Additional jobless benefits hinge on House vote
[07/22]
New jobless claims jump from two-year low
Real Estate
[07/28]
M/I Homes Reports Second Quarter Results
[07/28]
PMI Foundation Awards $50,000 Grant to Consumer Credit Counseling Service of San Francisco
[07/28]
Mortgage applications fall 4.4 percent last week
Case Summaries
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.
[06/24]
Brown v. Kelly
In a class action by persons allegedly arrested pursuant to an unconstitutional New York anti-begging statute, the district court's class certification order is affirmed in part where the citywide plaintiff class met the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). However, the order is reversed in part where the district court erred in certifying a statewide defendant class because the defendant class representatives did not meet the adequacy and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), and the district court also erred in certifying a statewide plaintiff class because the certification of this class was contingent on the bilateral certification of both a statewide plaintiff and a statewide defendant class.
Labor & Employment Law
[06/25]
Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
In plaintiff's suit for employment discrimination based on race and retaliation, district court's grant of defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed where, for substantially the same reasons as the court indicated below, the record reveals no significant evidentiary basis for the verdict.
[06/25]
Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr.
In plaintiff's Title VII suit against her former employer for being fired in retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment by residents of defendant's nursing home, district court's denial of defendant's motions for a new trial and remittitur are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff presented enough evidence to persuade a reasonable jury that her complaints caused defendant to fire her; 2) it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for a new trial on the basis of plaintiff's counsel's closing arguments; 3) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the compensatory damages as enough evidence supported a jury award of $25,000, which is well within the $200,000 cap set out in 42 U.S.C. section 1981a(b)(3)(C); and 4) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the punitive damage award and the logic of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008) does not apply to this Title VII case.
[06/25]
Ruiz v. Cty. of Rockland
In an action against a county for national origin and race discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court erred in finding that plaintiff was not qualified for his position based on evidence of plaintiff's misconduct; but 2) plaintiff failed to raise an inference of discrimination.
Property Law & Real Estate
[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.
[06/25]
Greenspan v. LADT, LLC
In a trust's suit for breach of contract and other claims against two affiliated companies and individuals, trial court's confirmation of an arbitrator's award against defendants in the amount of $6.34 million is affirmed where: 1) per the JAMS rules, the arbitrator, not a court, determines what issues are arbitrable, and here, the arbitrator determined that the issue of joint and several liability was arbitrable; 2) arbitrator's finding of joint and several liability was rationally related to the parties' contract; 3) as to the timeliness of the final award under JAMS rules, the arbitrator's interpretation and application of the rules cannot be judicially reviewed on the merits; and 4) the suit against the arbitrator was barred by arbitral immunity and would not have caused a reasonable person to doubt the arbitrator's impartiality.
[06/25]
Flava Works, Inc. v. City of Miami
In an action challenging the Miami Code Enforcement Board's final administrative ruling that plaintiffs were engaged in "adult entertainment" in an inappropriate zone and "illegally operating a business in a residential zone," judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where the activities taking place at the residence at issue were a clear violation of the prohibition against operating a business in a residential zone.