News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[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.

[08/19] US v. Flaherty
In an action brought under the False Claims Act alleging that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided a reimbursement check to defendant as a result of a fraudulent scheme, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where qui tam actions cannot be brought pro se.

More...

Property Law & Real Estate

[08/18] Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) bona fide error defense applies to mistakes of law, and is not limited to procedural or clerical errors. In an action claiming law firm and one of its attorneys violated the FDCPA when they used allegedly deceptive forms to notify her of a foreclosure on her home, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) although defendants violated the FDCPA by instructing plaintiff that she had to dispute the debt in writing; nevertheless, 2) defendants qualified for the FDCPA bona fide error defense.

[08/15] County of Humboldt v. McKee
In an action by county to assess property taxes on defendants for parcels transferred to third party purchasers, decision in favor of defendants is reversed where: 1) subsequent to the adoption of the 1978 Guidelines, which set forth revised regulations governing agricultural preserves, the parties voluntarily renewed their contract numerous times; 2) the new contract created with each renewal incorporated the 1978 Guidelines; and 3) thus, the 1978 Guidelines can be applied constitutionally to a Williamson Act contract executed in 1977.

[08/14] Santiago-Lugo v. US
In a claim by plaintiff for return of seized but not forfeited property as barred by the statute of limitations, government's motion for summary affirmance is granted where: 1) the six-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. section 2401(a) applies to Rule 41(g) claims; and 2) in circumstances where there has been a related criminal proceeding but no civil forfeiture proceeding, the cause of action accrues at the end of the criminal proceeding.

More...