Legal News

Case Summaries

Elder Law

[05/05] Miller v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
In a suit against American Airlines under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) a collective bargaining agreement did not require that plaintiffs be offered positions of comparable pay past the retirement age; 2) a claim, that a supplement to the collective bargaining agreement governing the retirement of flight engineers was facially discriminatory, was not properly raised before the EEOC.

[03/11] Budnick v. Town of Carefree
In an action raising, inter alia, a claim that defendant-town violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) by denying plaintiffs a Special Use Permit (SUP) to build a multi-level continuing-care retirement community in the town, summary judgment against plaintiffs on the FHAA claim is affirmed where plaintiff failed to establish a discrimination claim under any of the theories of disparate treatment, disparate impact, or a failure to make reasonable accommodations. Potential residents of a retirement community do not presently qualify as disabled under the FHAA simply because some of them will become disabled as they age.

[03/10] Med. Liab. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alan Curtis LLC
In an action brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment regarding its duties to defend and indemnify defendants against claims in an Arkansas state court action, summary judgment determining such duties is affirmed where the district court did not err by deciding that: 1) the only claim in the underlying lawsuit covered under insurer's policy was an estate's breach of contract claim against nursing home facility owner; 2) insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify owner on that claim and therefore also a duty to defend it on all of the estate's claims against it; and 3) insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify appellant-employee of the nursing home's management company.

[02/15] Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Crocker
Under Texas law, an insurer has no extra-contractual duty to notify an additional insured of available liability coverage and provide an unsought, uninvited, unrequested, unsolicited defense. Further, an insurer's actual knowledge that an additional insured has been served with process does not establish as a matter of law that the insurer has not been prejudiced by the additional insured's failure to notify the insurer of the receipt of process.

More...

Banking Law

[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] Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc.
In a patent infringement action involving automated financial account processing systems, summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendants is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the construction of "remote interface" only encompasses publicly-accessible computer equipment and not consumer owned personal computers; 2) thus, defendant-Federated was entitled to summary judgment; 3) defendants-TD Ameritrade and HSBC were entitled to summary judgment only with respect to systems that are accessed solely via consumer-owned personal computers; but 4) further proceedings were required as to those defendants based on certain modified claim constructions.

[05/01] Arnold, Matheny & Eagan, P.A. v. First Am. Holdings, Inc.
In a case involving the interpretation of Florida's garnishment statute and the obligations it imposes on third parties, including attorneys, who are served with writs of garnishment, the Supreme Court of Florida finds that Florida law imposes on both bank and non-bank garnishees the duty to retain funds held by the garnishee, even after a check on those funds has been drawn by the garnishee and delivered to the payee.

[04/29] Patel v. Mukasey
Petition for review of a decision finding that petitioner, a citizen of India, was removable for having committed an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) is denied where plaintiff's conviction for misprision of a felony was an offense that: 1) necessarily entailed fraud or deceit; and 2) involved a loss to the victim exceeding $10,000.

More...

Workers' Comp

[05/06] Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.

[04/30] Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner
In a case considering whether, for purposes of worker's compensation insurance, persons who made deliveries of newspapers for a newspaper publisher were independent contractors or employees, the court of appeals finds that the specific facts of this case and relevant case law supported a conclusion that the carriers were employees, and not independent contractors.

[04/29] Ramirez v. Murdick
In an action wherein plaintiff filed a Huffman claim seeking liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs for the late payment of worker's compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Superior Court did not err in its interpretation and application of Workers' Compensation Act, 19 Del. C. sections 2357 and 2362(c); and 2) although the Superior Court erred in converting employer's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless.

[12/05] Levan v. Independence Mall Inc.
In an action arising from an injury in a work-related accident wherein a petition for additional compensation was filed with the Industrial Accident Board more than 5 years after the employer's insurance carrier mailed the last medical expense payment, judgment that the petition was time-barred under 19 Del. C. section 2361(b) is affirmed over claims that: 1) the limitations period began to run when the claimant or his medical provider actually receives the last payment; and 2) the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence; and 3) the Superior Court applied its own construction of section 2361(b) incorrectly and erred when it upheld the Board's ultimate ruling of the petition as barred.

More...