Legal News Updates

Case Summaries

Contracts

[05/08] Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
In proceedings arising after the NLRB brought a complaint alleging that, by attempting to enforce certain provisions of a collective bargaining agreement with DHL Airways, petitioner-pilots' association had committed unfair labor practices, the association's petition for review of a finding that its conduct violated the National Labor Relations Act is granted where, under the analysis of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, the NLRB did not have jurisdiction over this Railway Labor Act dispute.

[05/08] Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)

[05/08] In Re: Peanut Crop Ins. Litig.
In an action against the government over the indemnification of losses covered by a privately issued and governmentally backed insurance policy, summary judgment for farmers on breach of contract claims is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) the policy did not create any contractual obligation for insurers to indemnify the farmers for lost peanuts in 2002 at a 31 cent quota rate since it was contingent on 2002 farm poundage quota allocations being made to individual farmers, and such allocations were never made; 2) the prevention doctrine was misapplied since the indemnification of the farmers did not depend on the allocation of quotas by the government; and 3) there was no detrimental reliance since government programs are subject to congressional modification, and the farmers had been notified that there would be revisions to the peanut quota program.

[05/07] Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.

[05/07] In Re: Barroso-Herrans
A bankruptcy court's approval of a settlement presented by the bankruptcy trustee is affirmed where the trustee's reading of certain of debtors' claimed exemptions, as limited to a $4,000 share of proceeds from each of two underlying lawsuits, was objectively reasonable.

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

[05/06] S. Nuclear Operating Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
In a hearing over modifications to health-care and life-insurance benefits made without negotiating with the employees' unions, petition for review is granted in part and the cross-application to enforce the order is granted in part where: 1) Other Post-Retirement Benefits (OPRB's) are a mandatory bargaining subject; 2) the unions did not waive their bargaining rights by not negotiating over the reservation-of-rights clauses; and 3) some of petitioners were allowed by contract to modify health-care OPRBs but none of them were allowed to unilaterally modify the life-insurance OPRBs.

[05/05] Profit Concepts Mgmt., Inc. v. Griffith
In a suit brought by a California-based company against a former employee-Oklahoma resident for breach of contract, wherein the employment contract at issue provided that in any litigation involving the contract, the prevailing party would be entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs, judgment for former employee awarding costs including attorney's fees is affirmed where: 1) because the trial court granted the employee's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction, the employee was the party prevailing on the contract under Civil Code section 1717; and 2) thus, he was entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees as costs.

More...

Probate Trusts

[05/06] Estate of Herold
An order denying petitioner's safe harbor petition, which sought a declaration that his proposed "Petition for Information" would not amount to a will contest, is reversed and remanded where the trial court erred in finding that a no contest clause of the will was incorporated by reference into a trust.

[05/06] Estate of Coll-Monge v. Inner Peace Movement
In an action for trademark infringement and related claims, summary judgment for defendants-non-profits is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in holding that a non-profit corporation cannot be a related company whose use of the trademark is controlled by the mark's registrant; and 2) there remain disputed issues of fact regarding both the doctrine's applicability in this case, and the capacity in which testator registered the marks with the USPTO.

[03/31] Akira Akazawa v. Link New Tech. Int'l, Inc.
In a patent dispute, summary judgment for defendant based on lack of standing is vacated where issues of Japanese intestacy law must be resolved by the district court in order to determine whether plaintiff owned the patent at issue, and therefore possessed standing to bring the present suit.

[03/27] Estate of McDaniel
In an intestacy situation where a husband deceased before the effective date of a stipulated judgment dissolving the marital partnership, the trial court properly found that the wife was not entitled to an intestate share as a "surviving spouse" within the meaning of section 78 of the Probate Code because she was by the time of decedent's death "a party to a valid proceeding concluded by an order purporting to terminate all marital rights" within the meaning of 78(d).

[03/27] Estate of Claeyssens
In a case involving estate or inheritance tax, an order denying an executrix's petition to refund fees imposed pursuant to Government Code sections 26827 and 68087 is reversed as: 1) to the extent that these statutes authorize the fee, they were enacted in violation of the state constitution and are of no force or effect; and 2) Proposition 6 (Rev. and Tax. Code section 13301), coupled with article II section 10 of California Constitution provide that the Legislature alone may not impose an estate or inheritance tax.

[03/13] In the Matter of the Accounting by Fleet Bank
Relying on strong policy considerations that applied in Matter of Best, 66 N.Y.2d 151 (1985), the Court of Appeals finds that a child adopted out of a family by strangers does not share in the proceeds of class gifts to the biological parent's issue created by 1926 and 1963 irrevocable trusts.

[03/03] Ranger v. Ranger
In a complaint for construction requesting the court construe various parts of the subject trust agreement, granting of summary judgment in favor of defendant regarding the disposition of the deceased's business is reversed and the matter remanded where summary judgment for defendant was inappropriate as the directive containing the disposition would not take effect until after the surviving trustor's death.

[02/26] In re Estate of Yucis
In the matter of obtaining restitution for theft from an estate, order of the probate court that convicted thief's fiance should give thief's personal property to the sheriff for sale and allowing fiance to go forward with the sale of real estate in which thief may have a contractual interest is reversed and the matter remanded where the probate court committed a clear error of law by entering the order.

More...