Case Summaries

[07/01] Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman
Trial court judgment sustaining the demurrers of Class Counsel is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff is collaterally estopped from pursuing a malpractice claim against Class Counsel based on the theory that counsel breached their duty of care to the class by failing to negotiate a different settlement notice procedure than that approved by the trial court in the prior action; and 2) plaintiff's argument that Class Counsel breached their duty of care by failing to contact him specifically once they knew or should have known that he had not submitted a timely claim form fails, as there is no authority imposing such an obligation on counsel in a class action suit. The court's award of sanctions to plaintiff's former employer Allstate under Code of Civil Procedure sec. 128.7 is reversed where Allstate did not satisfy the safe harbor requirements of the statute in seeking monetary sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel.

[06/29] Bakery Machinery & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc.
District court order denying plaintiff's motion to vacate the default judgment against it is affirmed where plaintiff's claim for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) based on the misconduct of its counsel fails as the counsel's actions, even with plaintiff's purported diligence, do not fall within the exceptions to the rule and do not rise to the level of exceptional to warrant such extraordinary relief.

[06/26] Capitol Hill Grp. v. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLC
In a legal malpractice action, summary judgment for Defendant law firm is affirmed where previous litigation involving Defendant's fee applications and the malpractice claim arose out of the same nucleus of facts and the identity element of res judicata was satisfied.

[06/10] Huss v. Gayden
In a personal injury action by a mother claiming that Defendant doctor negligently administered a drug during her pregnancy that injured her, judgment for Plaintiff is reversed where the District Court abused its discretion by excluding expert testimony by a physician whose education and knowledge allowed him to form a reliable opinion as to whether the drug at issue caused cardiomyopathy.

[06/09] Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. CITCO Fund Serv.
District court judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claims and ruling that plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden of pleading proximate causation for their losses is vacated and remanded where the complaint plausibly and in adequate detail set forth the allegations and pled that defendant Banc of America Securities aided and abetted frauds and breaches of fiduciary duty in a manner which proximately caused losses to the plaintiffs.

More...

[07/02] Glaser v. Wound Care Consultants, Inc.
In a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act, district court judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that the threshold jurisdictional bar of the Act against lawsuits based upon publicly disclosed allegations applied to the suit, as the allegations in the complaint about defendant's billing practices were in fact based on publicly disclosed information and plaintiff failed to show she was an original source of the information used to support the allegations.

[07/02] Milholland v. Sumner Cty. Bd. of Educ.
In an Americans with Disabilities Act action alleging that Plaintiff teacher was transferred between positions based on her arthritis, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant regarded her as disabled.

[07/01] Lafaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Group, PLLC
In an antitrust action, district court's grant of judgment on the pleadings and dismissal on grounds that state action immunity applied to all defendants is vacated and remanded where: 1) defendant Westchester County Health Care Corporation is entitled to the same status as a municipality for purposes of the state action immunity analysis, and the behavior by WCHCC was a foreseeable consequence of the authorizations in WCHCC's enabling statute; and 2) a private party is not exempted from the active supervision prong of the Midcal test simply by virtue of purporting to act pursuant to a contract with a governmental entity that itself would be entitled to state action immunity, and on remand the private defendants-doctors must therefore show that they were actively supervised by WCHCC in order to share in its immunity.

[06/30] Grammer v. John J. Kane Regional Centers
In a wrongful death action brought under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Amendments, district court judgment finding no right of action under the statutes and dismissing the case is reversed and remanded where it is clear that Congress intended to create individual rights in drafting and adopting the Amendments and plaintiff's mother falls squarely within the zone of interest the provisions are meant to protect. In addition, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 provides the proper avenue for relief for the statutory provisions which plaintiff seeks to enforce, as defendant has failed to demonstrate that Congress foreclosed that option by adopting another, more comprehensive enforcement scheme.

[06/30] Mednik v. State Dept. of Health Care Serv.
Trial court order denying plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's exclusion from the Medi-Cal program amounted to disbarment and he therefore has a liberty interest at stake; 2) plaintiff has not identified any aspect of the administrative appeal procedure in connection with his temporary suspension and denial of reenrollment which fell short of the demands of due process; and 3) there is no support for plaintiff's allegation that the trial court lacked the complete administrative record.

More...

[07/02] Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GBMH & Co.
In a trademark infringement action involving the enzyme-based dietary supplement Wobenzym, the District Court's preliminary injunction requiring Defendant to cease selling a dietary supplement is affirmed in part, where Defendant did not meet its burden to prove that Plaintiff ceased production of the supplement; but vacated in part, where a District Court must find a substantial risk of danger to the public or other special circumstances in order to enter an interlocutory order recalling a product in a trademark infringement case.

[06/29] Young v. Memorial Hermann Hosp. Sys.
In a negligence action against a hospital for allegedly improper treatment of a stroke, summary judgment for Defendants is affirmed where Plaintiffs failed to present reliable evidence that it was more likely than not that the patient would have been among those who materially benefit from the administration of a certain drug rather than those who receive the therapy and do not benefit.

[06/18] Andreu v. Sec'y. of Health & Human Servs.
In a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, the denial of the petition is reversed where the special master erroneously: 1) determined that the testimony of Petitioner's physicians was insufficient to establish "a logical sequence of cause and effect" leading to Petitioner's vaccine-related injury; and 2) imposed upon Petitioner an elevated evidentiary burden, requiring conclusive proof in the medical literature linking Petitioner's symptoms to the vaccine at issue.

[06/04] Agilent Tech., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc.
In a patent interference action pertaining to "microarray hybridization," district court judgment is reversed where: 1) the court erred in its claim construction, as it was not grounded in the right disclosure and did not honor the customary meaning of the claim language to one of skill in the art; and 2) the court improperly denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment with regard to written description under 35 U.S.C. sec. 112 and improperly granted defendant's cross-motion on the same issue, as the defendant's patent application did not describe the invention adequately under the statute to show actual possession of the claimed invention and thus did not satisfy the written description requirement for the claims at issue.

[06/03] Volkman v. US Drug Enforcement Agency
In a petition for review of the DEA's denial to Petitioner of a license to dispense controlled substances, the petition is denied, where substantial evidence showed that Petitioner's prior drug prescription practices violated state and federal law.

More...