Case Summaries

Property Law & Real Estate

[11/21] US v. Goss
Sentence for mortgage-lending fraud is vacated and remanded where, when computing the sentencing guidelines range, the fair market value of the collateral for each of the home-mortgage loans involved in the scheme should have been credited against loss to the victim.

[11/19] McDonald v. Sun Oil Co.
In a suit arising out of the sale of a property containing a disused mercury mine, alleging negligence, contribution, breach of contract and fraud as a result of an alleged oral warranty that certain rock at the mine was free of mercury, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the state statute of repose did not render the negligence claim time-barred, because provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act amending state statute of limitations rules also applied to statutes of repose; 2) the contribution claim could not be brought without remedial action having been initiated by a state environmental agency; 3) the parol evidence rule was properly applied to find that the parties had reduced their entire agreement to writing and that no binding oral warranty existed; and 4) plaintiffs did not produce evidence of the alleged falsity of statements made by defendant.

[11/19] Vineberg v. Bissonnette
In a property matter concerning the viability of a laches defense asserted by the current possessor of a work of art in effort to fend of an action for replevin, summary judgment in favor of original owner's successors in interest is affirmed where: 1) the district court acted well within the realm of its discretion in refusing the defendant's tardy request to reopen discovery; and 2) the court had an appropriate rationale for granting the plaintiffs' motion for brevis disposition.

[11/17] Kachlon v. Markowitz
In claims for wrongful foreclosure under a deed of trust and breach of a home improvement contract, judgment is reversed in part where: 1) Civil Code section 2924 deems the statutorily required mailing, publication, and delivery of notices in nonjudicial foreclosure, and the performance of statutory nonjudicial foreclosure procedures, to be privileged communications under the qualified, common-interest privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (c)(1); 2) foreclosure company's recording of the notice of default on instruction by the home sellers was privileged; and 3) evidence failed to demonstrate foreclosure company acted with malice thus foreclosure company was immune from homebuyers' slander of title and negligence claims. Judgment is affirmed in part where: 1) unlike foreclosure company, home sellers were not entitled to privilege protection; and 2) the trial court properly found that homebuyers were prevailing parties entitled to attorney fees against home sellers and foreclosure company on equitable claims arising out of the promissory note and deed of trust.

[11/17] US v. Shefton
Dismissal of petition for an ancillary hearing regarding interest in certain property that was subject to a criminal forfeiture order is reversed where a construct trust can serve as a superior legal interest under section 853(n)(6)(A) and thus can serve as grounds for invalidating a criminal forfeiture act.

More...

Contracts

[11/19] McDonald v. Sun Oil Co.
In a suit arising out of the sale of a property containing a disused mercury mine, alleging negligence, contribution, breach of contract and fraud as a result of an alleged oral warranty that certain rock at the mine was free of mercury, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the state statute of repose did not render the negligence claim time-barred, because provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act amending state statute of limitations rules also applied to statutes of repose; 2) the contribution claim could not be brought without remedial action having been initiated by a state environmental agency; 3) the parol evidence rule was properly applied to find that the parties had reduced their entire agreement to writing and that no binding oral warranty existed; and 4) plaintiffs did not produce evidence of the alleged falsity of statements made by defendant.

[11/18] Dealer Computer Svcs., Inc. v. Dub Herring Ford
Following an arbitration decision granting award to defendant-dealerships and finding arbitration provisions found in various contracts between defendant-dealerships and plaintiff-computer software and hardware vendor did not preclude class arbitration, district court judgment in favor of defendant-dealerships is vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss where the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitration award because the matter was not ripe for judicial review.

[11/17] Native Am. Distrib. v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co.
In an breach of contract action between a distributor and an enterprise of a tribe, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed where: 1) the tribal enterprise has not waived its immunity; 2) the enterprise was not equitably estopped from asserting its immunity due to the misrepresentations of its managers; 3) the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction; and 4) the plaintiffs failed to allege a viable civil conspiracy claim against the individual defendants in their individual capacities.

[11/17] Seals v. General Motors Corp.
In an intentional tort claim action against defendant-employer General Motors for injuries suffered at defendant's metal stamping plant, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the release form signed by plaintiff-employee barred plaintiff's claim as a matter of law.

[11/17] The Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Holcim (US), Inc.
In a claim for contractual indemnification related to settlement of a tort claim, the court certified the following questions: 1) whether, under Alabama law, an indemnitee may enforce an indemnification provision and recover damages from an indemnitor resulting from the combined or concurrent fault or negligence of the indemnitee and indemnitor; and 2) whether, under Alabama law, a court may look behind (or beyond) the pleadings (in particular, the complaint) of an underlying tort action in determining the application of an indemnification provision between an indemnitor and indemnitee.

More...

Commercial Law

[11/18] Surrey v. TrueBeginnings
In a case of first impression in California involving an online matchmaking service, someone who presents him or herself to a business with the intent of purchasing its services or products, but becomes aware of that business's practice of charging different amounts for such services or products based on gender and thereafter does not purchase those services or products, is not aggrieved by that practice so as to have standing to sue for violations of the Unruh Act and the Gender Tax Repeal Act. The court adopts a bright-line rule that a person must tender the purchase price for a business's services or products in order to have standing to sue it for alleged discriminatory practices relating thereto.

[11/14] Cadles of Grassy Meadows II, LLC v. Goldner
Petition for panel rehearing granted, prior opinion withdrawn, and matter remanded for further proceedings in light of Kerlin v. Sauceda, 05-0653 (Tex. October 10, 2008).

[11/12] Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg.
In an action alleging, inter alia, copyright and trademark infringement involving the original and remade motion pictures "Gone in 60 Seconds", as well as products relating to the film, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where the district court erred in: 1) refusing to use extrinsic evidence submitted by plaintiffs to aid in its interpretation of an agreement between the parties, finding that such evidence did not show that the agreement was reasonably susceptible to plaintiffs' interpretation; 2) interpreting disputed language in an agreement between plaintiff and a non-party corporation; 3) applying the wrong legal standard in finding that plaintiffs did not have statutory standing to assert trademark infringement and unfair competition claims; and 4) concluding that plaintiffs did not have statutory or Article III standing to assert claims for declaratory relief.

[11/12] Hoopes v. Dolan
In a suit by plaintiff-commercial tenant against his landlord for exclusive parking rights under his lease, a judgment for defendants despite a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the trial court erred in disregarding the jury's verdict when fashioning equitable relief founded on the same evidence and the same operative facts as the verdict; 2) however, the defense of equitable estoppel was a matter within the exclusive province of the trial judge and it raised legal and factual issues undecided by the jury; and 3) while the trial court should have considered the equitable defense first, the order of trial was within the court's discretion and did not divest the judge of his duty to determine applicability of equitable estoppel.

[07/29] Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.
Denial of the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction against the merger of the Whole Foods and Wild Oats supermarket chains is reversed and remanded where: 1) the case was not moot despite the merger's having already occurred; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the market definition proposed by the FTC, in which Whole Foods and Wild Oats compete in the "premium, natural, and organic supermarkets" (PNOS) market, not against all supermarkets; 3) the FTC met the threshold requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction by demonstrating a likelihood of success on its claim that the two supermarkets did compete in the PNOS market; and 4) the district court was best positioned to balance the FTC's showing against the equities weighing against an injunction. (Amended and reissued opinion)

More...