National News & Case Coverage

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[10/06] Manning v. US
In a suit alleging Bivens claims against FBI agents and a tort claim against the U.S. under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), vacatur of a judgment for plaintiff on his Bivens claims is affirmed where 28 U.S.C. section 2676 applied to bar any claim by plaintiff against individual government employees arising out of the same facts alleged in his FTCA action.

[10/02] Castaneda v. Henneford
In a claim of Constitutional violations committed by officers and employees of the Public Health Service on a prisoner whose repeatedly untreated penile cancer resulted in his death, denial of a motion to dismiss is affirmed where 42 U.S.C. section 233(a) of the Federal Tort Claims Act does not provide a substitute for Bivens claims and thus does not entitle federal agents to absolute immunity from claims alleging Constitutional torts.

[09/29] Wachovia Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Toomey
Upon certified questions from the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in a case arising from the termination of two employment contracts, the court answers that: 1) a settlement agreement between two parties that explicitly contains both an assignment of causes of action against a third party insurer and an immediate release of the insured on the same causes of action is valid; 2) the claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising from the relationship between the insurance broker and the insured involving allegations of failure to provide insurance coverage was also assignable as it is analogous to a cause of action for bad faith; and 3) the claim for negligent failure to procure insurance coverage should not have been dismissed as a matter of law, was assignable, and should have been submitted to the jury.

More...

Consumer Products

[09/26] Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County
In an action alleging that petitioner-Hewlett Packard's Pavilions series notebook computers suffer from a manufacturing defect, petition for writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate an order certifying a class in this action is denied where: 1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class in this case; 2) the principles of Daugherty v. American Honda Co., Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 824 (2006), do not serve to undermine the community of interest required to certify a class in the present case; 3) when applied, Daugherty goes to the merits of the claim, rather the procedural question of class determination; and 4) petitioner's liability to the class overall is subject to a review by facts common to all class members, and as such, it is appropriate for class treatment.

[09/25] US v. Able Time, Inc.
In an suit involving allegedly counterfeit watches seized by Customs and the resulting civil penalties imposed, grant of summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) the Tariff Act does not contain an identity of goods or services requirement; and 2) as a matter of law, goods imported by defendant could not be "merchandise bearing a counterfeit mark" under 19 U.S.C. section 1526(e) because the owner of the trademark in question did not at the time make the type of goods imported by defendant.

[09/25] Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc.
If a trial court grants a motion to quash service of summons due to lack of personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, such court does have jurisdiction thereafter to rule upon that defendant's motion for attorney fees.

More...