LEGAL NEWS

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[09/05] Sindecuse v. Katsaros
In a case alleging common law fraud surrounding a stock purchase, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the allegedly fraudulent statements could not support claims of fraud because they were: 1) predictions of the future; and 2) a promise of future action not accompanied by a present intent not to perform.

[09/04] Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Lockyer
After remand, in a case interpreting California's Financial Information Privacy Act (FIPA) in light of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a ruling that the FRCA entirely preempted FIPA section 4053(b)(1), which restricts the sharing of nonpublic consumer personal information between financial institutions and their affiliates, is reversed and remanded where the preempted portions of FIPA are severable, narrowing FIPA section 4053(b)(1) to exclude consumer report information as defined by the FCRA.

More...

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[09/05] Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg
In a lawsuit by a corporation against its officers and attorneys, order granting defendant's application to file a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, motion is reversed, vacated, and remanded with directions to deny defendant's application to file an anti-SLAPP motion where: 1) defendant failed to provide a compelling explanation for why he did not file an anti-SLAPP motion earlier in the case; 2) defendant did not articulate any extenuating circumstances justifying a late filing; and 3) under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant's application to file the anti-SLAPP motion.

[09/05] Pachter v. Bernard Hodes Group
In a claim brought by former employee-plaintiff challenging legality of deductions under Article 6 section 193 of the New York Labor law taken by employer-defendant, decision in favor of plaintiff is reversed and remanded after answers by New York Court of Appeals to certified questions resolved the case, where: 1) because New York Labor Law Article 6, section 193 includes executives unless otherwise excluded, plaintiff is covered; however, 2) plaintiff's cause of action fails because it is undisputed that plaintiff knowingly acquiesced over a period of years to the approach used by defendant when calculating her commissions, conduct that constituted an implied agreement between parties; and 3) as an implied agreement does not violate "section 193 nor any other provision of article 6 of the Labor Law," the deductions in question did not violate that provision.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/05] US v. Bendtzen
In a case challenging an enhanced sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual, sentence is affirmed where use of a fake bomb during a bank robbery constitutes "a dangerous weapon. . .otherwise used" and thus a four level sentence increase under U.S.S.G. section 2B3.1(b)(2)(D) and consideration of defendant's past crimes was not unreasonable in calculating a category VI criminal history.

[09/05] US v. Nader
In prosections related to a prostitution ring, convictions for violations of the Travel Act are affirmed where: 1) the convictions were based on telephone calls within a single state; and 2) the telephone is a facility in interstate commerce even when used for in-state calling.

More...

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[09/05] Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C & W Enters.
In a construction contract dispute involving a federally recognized Native American tribe, an order enjoining a South Dakota state court from confirming an arbitration award against the Oglala Sioux Tribe for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is vacated and remanded where: 1) three of the four contracts subject of the arbitration contained explicit waivers of the tribe's sovereign immunity; and 2) the tribe waived sovereign immunity as to the fourth contract by agreeing to include it in the same arbitration.

[08/29] Forest Oil Corp. v. McAllen
In a suit over a commercial contract, denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reversed and remanded where: 1) courts must examine the contract itself and the totality of the surrounding circumstances when determining if a waiver-of-reliance provision is binding; and 2) an unambiguous waiver-of-reliance provision precludes a fraudulent-inducement claim as a matter of law.

More...

Family Law

[09/03] Johansen v. Comm. of Internal Revenue
In a tax case arising out of a divorce, a holding by the Tax Court that spousal support payments qualify as alimony to be reported as income by the payee is affirmed where: 1) state law requires that spousal support payments terminate on the death of either spouse unless otherwise agreed in writing; and 2) the divorce agreement does not extend spousal support payments beyond death of either party.

[09/03] Alanis-Alvarado v. Mukasey
Petition for review of deportation order is denied where petitioner violated a protection order issued under California Family Code Section 6320, which by definition fits categorically within the protection orders whose violation qualifies as a deportable offense under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[09/05] Sindecuse v. Katsaros
In a case alleging common law fraud surrounding a stock purchase, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the allegedly fraudulent statements could not support claims of fraud because they were: 1) predictions of the future; and 2) a promise of future action not accompanied by a present intent not to perform.

[09/05] Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg
In a lawsuit by a corporation against its officers and attorneys, order granting defendant's application to file a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, motion is reversed, vacated, and remanded with directions to deny defendant's application to file an anti-SLAPP motion where: 1) defendant failed to provide a compelling explanation for why he did not file an anti-SLAPP motion earlier in the case; 2) defendant did not articulate any extenuating circumstances justifying a late filing; and 3) under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant's application to file the anti-SLAPP motion.

More...