Case Summaries
Civil Procedure
[04/15]
Bass v. Potter
The willfulness standard set forth in Laughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988), wherein a plaintiff must show that "the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute", applies to the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In an action alleging that USPS "willfully" violated the FMLA by refusing to accept plaintiff's medical certification and, on that basis, denying his request for FMLA leave, summary judgment for employer is affirmed where plaintiff's claim was barred by the FMLA's two-year limitations period, as opposed to the three-year period applicable to "willful" violations.
[04/15]
Platt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc.
In an action alleging defendant, a non-profit consumer safety group, negligently misrepresented and fraudulently concealed that defective in-wall heaters were safe, grant of defendant's motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings is affirmed where the district court properly dismissed negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment claims as barred by the statutes of limitations, and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claims without leave to amend.
[04/15]
Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n-Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n Pension Fund v. Comm'r of IRS
In an action arising from an IRS imposition of a tax penalty and collection thereof by a levy on a trust fund's assets, summary judgment for IRS is affirmed and vacated in part where: 1) the fund's administrator lacked standing to sue the United States for a refund under 28 U.S.C. section 1346(a)(1), when the penalty was actually against the fund itself but the fund administrator reimbursed the fund; but 2) the taxpayer-fund's tax refund request was not untimely, as the common-law mailbox rule simply supplemented 26 U.S.C. section 7502 and there was sufficient direct evidence of timely receipt to preclude summary judgment.
[04/15]
US v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co.
The plain language of 26 U.S.C. sections 7422(a) and 6511 requires a taxpayer seeking a refund for a tax assessed in violation of the Export Clause, just as for any other unlawfully assessed tax, to file a timely administrative refund claim before bringing suit against the government.
[04/15]
DeAndrade v. Trans Union LLC
In an action arising from a dispute over a loan payment and the credit bureaus' alleged failure to reinvestigate properly and delete a disputed debt from plaintiff's credit report, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the material facts were undisputed and established no FCRA violation.
[04/15]
Harbury v. Hayden
In a suit alleging that members of the U.S. government were responsible for the torture and death of a Guatemalan rebel fighter, dismissal of plaintiff's common law tort claims is affirmed where: 1) the political question doctrine barred consideration of plaintiff's claims; and 2) even if the political question doctrine did not apply, the Federal Tort Claims Act applied to plaintiff's tort claims, and the FTCA bars suits based on injuries suffered in a foreign country.
[04/15]
Springman v. AIG Mktg.
In a class action suit against insurers alleging that defendants violated fraud and consumer protection law by underpaying accident insurance claims submitted by the plaintiff and the members of his class, denial of the plaintiff's motion to remand to state court is affirmed where the substitution of a defendant did not relate back to the original suit since the plaintiff's delay in moving for substitution prevented the new defendant from knowing that, but for mistake, the action should originally have been brought against it. Thus, the filing date of the lawsuit for removal purposes under the Class Action Fairness Act was the date of substitution, which placed the action within the Act's effective date and allowed for removal to federal court.
More...
|