Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[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 Protection

[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] 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...

Health Law

[10/02] US v. Salina Reg'l Health Ctr., Inc.
A qui tam plaintiff, proceeding under the False Claims Act (FCA), cannot maintain a cause of action against a Medicare provider based on an allegation that the provider's certification of compliance with Medicare statutes and regulations, contained in the annual cost report, renders all claims submitted for reimbursement by that provider false within the meaning of the FCA.

[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.

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] 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...

Class Actions

[10/01] In re Heritage Bond Litig.
In a challenge to the scope of bar orders issued in securities class action settlements, bar orders forbidding all suits by non-settling defendant against settling defendants relating to or arising out of the class action are vacated as overly broad and remanded for modification because bar orders issued pursuant to Private Securities Litigation Reform Act section 4(f)(7)(A) or California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 can only bar claims for contribution, indemnity, and claims where the injury is the non-settling defendant's liability to the class action plaintiffs.

[10/01] Estate of Marion Landers v. Leavitt
In a putative class action brought by Medicare participants challenging denial of coverage for post-hospitalization care in skilled nursing facilities, decision certifying the class and granting judgment to the defendant is affirmed where: 1) the interpretation of the qualifying stay requirement set forth in the government's Medicare Benefit Policy Manual was not entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984); 2) a Medicare beneficiary is not an inpatient within the meaning of section 1395x(i) unless he or she has been formally admitted to a hospital; 3) the rule does not violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection; 4) the district court correctly excluded interrogatories because they represented post hoc statements from the agency; and 5) the district court also correctly excluded plaintiff's declarations and statements of material facts.

More...