Legal News

Case Summaries

Class Actions

[05/16] In re Schering Plough Corp.
In consolidated putative class actions brought by third-party payors of drugs prescribed for off-label purposes and by individual patients against a drug company that conducted alleged illegal and false sales and marketing campaigns, the district court's dismissal of both actions for lack of standing is affirmed, where: 1) the third-party payor plaintiff did not establish that its alleged injury was fairly traceable to the defendant's alleged wrongful conduct; and 2) the individual plaintiff failed to adequately allege causation.

[05/08] Aleksick v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
In a class action challenge to the practice of a payroll services provider in converting any partial hour worked in a pay period from minutes to hundredths of an hour, thereby shorting employees of a few seconds of time and commensurate pay, summary judgment to the defendant is affirmed, where: 1) the complaint did not allege any statutory predicate for the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim of unlawfulness, and the plaintiff did not seek leave to amend, so the principle of forfeiture applied; and 2) even without forfeiture, the plaintiff could not pursue UCL claims for unlawfulness or unfairness because the Labor Code wage statutes govern the employee-employer relationship, and undisputed evidence showed the defendant was not the class members' employer.

[05/04] Liu v. Amerco
In a class action suit alleging that U-Haul had engaged in an attempted price-fixing scheme in violation of state consumer protection law, the district court's dismissal is vacated, where: 1) diversity jurisdiction existed, since the amount in controversy as to the class would likely exceed $5,000,000; 2) the alleged acts violated the state law; and 3) the plaintiff adequately pled causation of damages.

[05/01] Casey v. Merck & Co.
In litigation involving product liability claims for injuries allegedly caused by a prescription drug manufactured by the defendant, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed, where the plaintiffs' actions were untimely under Virginia's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, since the Supreme Court of Virginia determined that: 1) there is no authority in Virginia jurisprudence for the equitable tolling of a statute of limitations based upon the pendency of a putative class action in another jurisdiction; and 2) Va. Code Ann. section 8.01-229(E)(1) does not toll the statute of limitations for unnamed putative class members due to the pendency of a putative class action in another jurisdiction.

[04/25] Kinecta Alternative Financial Solutions Inc. v. Superior Court (Malone)
In a putative class action alleging wage and hour violations by an employer, in which the defendant moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's individual claims, alleging failure to pay overtime and provide rest and meal periods, and to dismiss the class claims, it is held that: 1) the plaintiff did not provide evidence establishing that the provision authorizing only bilateral arbitration was unenforceable or that classwide arbitration was required; and 2) the parties' arbitration agreement did not authorize class arbitration, so the order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss class claims without prejudice had to be reversed.

Read More

Consumer Protection

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[05/11] Al Shimari v. CACI International, Inc.
In suits by former prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, alleging that the defendant prison contractors and certain of their employees were liable in common law tort and under the Alien Tort Statute for torturing and abusing them during their incarceration, consolidated appeals by the defendants are dismissed, where: 1) there was no independent basis for appellate jurisdiction premised on the law-of-war defense, Saleh preemption, or Mangold immunity, so the Fourth Circuit was without pendent jurisdiction to further consider the appellants' contentions that the plaintiffs' claims presented nonjusticiable political questions; and 2) the exercise of jurisdiction was precluded regardless of whether the appellants' political question defense was inextricably intertwined with any of the three proffered bases for jurisdiction, or whether those bases were similarly interdependent with one another.

[05/07] Bettencourt v. Hennessey Industries, Inc.
In a suit claiming that the use of the defendant's machines to grind asbestos-containing brake linings resulted in exposure to airborne asbestos fibers that caused injury, the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant on all causes of action is reversed in part, where it was error to grant judgment on the pleadings to the defendant and an abuse of discretion to deny the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints with respect to their causes of action for strict products liability and negligence.

[05/03] Beckwith v. Dahl
In a suit alleging intentional interference with an expected inheritance (IIEI) and deceit by false promise, the trial court's order sustaining a demurrer and dismissing the case is reversed, where: 1) the tort of IIEI is recognized as a valid cause of action; and 2) the complaint alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for deceit, as all the elements of promissory fraud were adequately alleged, but there were insufficient facts stated to allege IIEI.

[05/03] Bready v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
By memorandum, it is held that the Appellate Division properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in each of two consolidated cases, where the defendant made a prima facie showing that it did not breach the duty of care applicable under the Federal Employer's Liability Act.

[05/02] Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.
In a design defect suit against a drug manufacturer, the jury's award in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed against arguments that: 1) the district court misunderstood New Hampshire law on design defect claims; 2) such claims as to generic drugs are preempted under federal law; that causation was not proved; 3) the plaintiff's expert evidence was inadmissible on multiple grounds; 4) instructions as to label warnings were inaccurate; 5) misconduct by the plaintiff's counsel required a new trial; and 6) damages were excessive and required a new trial.

Read More

Workers' Comp

[05/15] Harman Mining Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, DOL
In a case in which an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that a man suffered disabling obstructive lung disease arising out of his work as a coal miner and awarded his widow black lung benefits payable by his former employer, a petition for review is denied, where the award of benefits found support in the record and accorded with the Administrative Procedure Act, as the ALJ properly evaluated the appropriate weight to accord conflicting medical opinions.

[05/15] DMS Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (Zurich Services Corp.)
In a suit by a provider of commercial janitorial services against the third-party administrator for its workers' compensation insurance claims, a petition for writ of mandate seeking to vacate the trial court's order compelling arbitration is granted, where: 1) none of the plaintiffs' agreements with their administrator contained an arbitration clause; and 2) the trial court erred in compelling arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, because the plaintiffs' claims against the administrator were not founded in, or inextricably intertwined with, the deductible agreement with the insurer, which contained the arbitration clause.

[05/03] Bready v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
By memorandum, it is held that the Appellate Division properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in each of two consolidated cases, where the defendant made a prima facie showing that it did not breach the duty of care applicable under the Federal Employer's Liability Act.

[05/01] Matter of Zamora
A claim for workers' compensation benefits is denied, where: 1) the Workers' Compensation Board need not infer, from the finding that a claimant withdrew from his or her employment due to an accident at the work place, that his or her post-accident loss of wages is attributable to physical limitations caused by the accident; and 2) there was substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that the claimant had not made a reasonable search for work consistent with her physical restrictions.

[05/01] Matter of Schmidt
In a case in which a worker applied for and received workers' compensation benefits at the maximum for hip and back injuries, and also received a schedule loss of use award for hearing loss that was made concurrently payable, the award for the hearing loss claim is reversed, where periodic payments of a schedule loss of use award must be deferred to the extent that those payments, when combined with payments of another disability award, would exceed the cap imposed by Workers' Compensation Law section 15(6).

Read More