Case Summaries

Legal Malpractice

[07/23] Gil v. Reed
In an inmate's negligence, malpractice, and civil rights suit against prison medical staff, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where the record contained sufficient evidence to show genuine issues of material fact on: 1) inmate's Eighth Amendment claim that prison staff were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs; and 2) whether defendants had met the standard of care, using the state-law standard as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act.

[07/21] Simmons v. Ghaderi
In a breach of contract action arising from a medical malpractice suit, wherein plaintiffs sought to enforce an oral settlement agreement allegedly formed during mediation, a ruling upholding a decision to admit evidence relating to the mediation proceedings is reversed where: 1) the court of appeal improperly relied on the doctrine of estoppel to create a judicial exception to the comprehensive statutory scheme of mediation confidentiality; and 2) the evidence relating to the mediation proceedings should not have been admitted at trial.

[07/18] Ginter v. Belcher, Prendergast & Laporte
In an interlocutory appeal arising from a dispute between a married couple and their attorney, a district court's ruling finding that a forum-selection clause in the parties' attorney-client agreement was unenforceable is reversed where: 1) the forum-selection clause in the agreement was enforceable as it was not the product of overreaching nor was it against public policy; and 2) the clause governed the tort claims at issue.

More...

Admiralty

[07/23] Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. US Envtl. Prot. Agency
In an action challenging a regulation originally promulgated by the EPA in 1973 exempting certain marine discharges from the permitting scheme of sections 301(a) and 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a decision vacating the regulation is affirmed where: 1) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the suit; 2) the EPA acted ultra vires in promulgating the regulation and its denial of plaintiffs' 1999 petition requesting a repeal of the regulation was not in accordance with law; and 3) the remedial order was a proper exercise of the district court's discretion.

[07/16] Turbomeca, S.A. v. Era Helicopters LLC
In a suit for economic loss arising out of the loss of a helicopter due to engine trouble, dismissal of tort claims alleging post-sale failure to warn of a pre-sale product defect is affirmed where: 1) the circuit court refuses to recognize an exception to the East River doctrine for post-sale negligent failure to warn claims; and 2) purchaser is restricted to a warranty or contract cause of action under maritime law.

[07/15] Kirksey v. Tonghai Maritime
In a negligence action brought under 33 U.S.C. section 905(b), judgment for plaintiff is reversed, the case remanded, and judgment rendered for defendants where: 1) a defect in the cargo stow was open and obvious to plaintiff; and 2) defendants did not have a turnover duty to warn or to furnish a reasonably safe ship against an obvious defect or unsafe condition.

More...

Consumer Protection

[07/17] Owen v. Gen. Motors Corp.
In a putative class action brought against GM after plaintiffs' windshield wipers failed alleging breach of warranty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), dismissal and other rulings against plaintiffs are affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in dismissing breach of warranty and fraudulent concealment claims on statute of limitations grounds; 2) dismissal of a breach of contract claim was proper as well; 3) there was no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend; 4) summary judgment on the state law MMPA claim was proper as plaintiffs presented no evidence from which a jury reasonably could conclude that their loss was the result of the alleged defect that GM failed to disclose.

[07/16] Sovereign Bank v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.
Orders dismissing claims arising from the theft of credit card information from a retailer's computer files are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) respective grants of summary judgment to defendant-acquirer on question of whether plaintiffs-card issuers were intended third-party beneficiaries under state law of the contract between defendant-acquirer and defendant-merchant required reversal, as plaintiffs had met their burden to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact; 2) dismissal of equitable indemnification claims for cardholders' losses due to unauthorized charges was proper since TILA section 1643 addresses only the liability of cardholders, not card issuers, for unauthorized charges; 3) the economic loss doctrine barred recovery for negligence where plaintiff suffered only monetary losses without any accompanying physical or property damage; 4) for purposes of an unjust enrichment claim, plaintiff could not show that defendants derived more than an incidental benefit from plaintiff's conduct.

[07/16] Brack v. Omni Loan Co., Ltd.
In a suit alleging violations of borrower's rights under the Finance Lenders Law, and raising claims under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, dismissal of the suit based on choice of law provisions in the loan agreements is reversed where: 1) the Finance Lenders Law represents a fundamental policy of the state and application of the provisions would undermine the policy; and 2) application of Nevada law would impair California's regulatory interests to a far greater extent than application of California law would impair Nevada's interests.

More...

Insurance Law

[07/21] Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg. Inc.
In a case involving the contractual duty to defend in a noninsurance context, judgment and rulings against defendant-subcontractor is affirmed where, by their particular terms, the provisions of a pre-2006 residential construction subcontract obliged subcontractor to defend its indemnitee-developer/builder in lawsuits brought against both parties, insofar as the plaintiffs' complaints alleged construction defects arising from the subcontractor's negligence, even though: 1) a jury ultimately found that the subcontractor was not negligent; and 2) the parties accepted an interpretation of the subcontract that gave the builder no right of indemnity unless the subcontractor was negligent.

[07/21] Hoag v. Amex Ins. Co.
Dismissal of plaintiff's uninsured-motorist claim as a sanction for his failure to provide discovery as ordered by the trial court was neither too extreme nor an abuse of discretion where the failures were willful and repeated.

[06/26] Peterson v. Cellco Partnership
Judgment dismissing plaintiffs' case with prejudice after the court sustained defendant's demurrers is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to support their standing to bring an unfair competition claim; and 2) plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim was based on alleged Insurance Code violations for which no private right of action exists, and plaintiffs received the benefit of the bargain.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[07/23] Montano v. Chicago
In a suit seeking recovery for injuries suffered by plaintiffs in confrontations with police, dismissals of plaintiffs' claims are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court clearly erred in dismissing plaintiffs' claims with prejudice as a sanction for abuse of the judicial process; 2) judgments as a matter of law for police officers on certain claims was error as there was an evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for plaintiffs; 3) summary judgment for defendants on claims that they lacked probable cause to arrest plaintiffs for public drinking and disorderly conduct, and that they failed to intervene to prevent the use of excessive force by other officers, was proper; and 4) summary judgment for city on a liability claim under Monell was proper where plaintiffs failed to produce evidence to show deliberate indifference by the police board to constitutional violations by its officers.

[07/23] Gil v. Reed
In an inmate's negligence, malpractice, and civil rights suit against prison medical staff, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where the record contained sufficient evidence to show genuine issues of material fact on: 1) inmate's Eighth Amendment claim that prison staff were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs; and 2) whether defendants had met the standard of care, using the state-law standard as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act.

[07/21] Hoag v. Amex Ins. Co.
Dismissal of plaintiff's uninsured-motorist claim as a sanction for his failure to provide discovery as ordered by the trial court was neither too extreme nor an abuse of discretion where the failures were willful and repeated.

More...