Recent News

Case Summaries

Class Actions

[02/06] Duran v. U.S. Bank NA
In a wage and hour class action brought by current and former business banking officers who claimed they were misclassified by the defendant bank as outside sales personnel exempt from California's overtime laws, and were thus unlawfully denied overtime pay, the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is reversed, where: 1) the trial plan erroneously relied on representative sampling and thus violated the bank's right to due process of law; 2) the trial court's refusal to allow the bank to introduce evidence to challenge the claims of certain class members violated its due process rights; 3) the statistical sampling methods, with their 43.3 percent margin of error, produced results so unreliable as to render the judgment unconstitutional; and 4) the trial court erred in denying a motion to decertify the class.

[02/02] Gentry v. Siegel
In bankruptcy proceedings in which former employees of the debtor filed claims for unpaid overtime wages, the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of a Rule 9014 motion and its refusal to allow the claimants to pursue class actions is affirmed, where: 1) the bankruptcy court was within its discretion to rule that the bankruptcy process would provide a process superior to the class action process for resolving the claims of former employees; 2) notice of the bankruptcy process to the named claimants was not constitutionally deficient; and 3) with respect to unnamed claimants, the named claimants lacked standing to challenge the notice.

[02/01] In re American Express Merchants' Litigation
In a class action asserting Sherman Act claims, brought against a charge card issuer whose card acceptance agreement purported to preclude a merchant from bringing a class action lawsuit, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissal of the case is reversed, where the cost of plaintiffs' individually arbitrating their dispute with the defendant would be prohibitive, effectively depriving them of the statutory protections of the antitrust laws, and thus the class action waiver in the arbitration provision was unenforceable.

[02/01] Muto v. CBS Corp.
In a putative class action complaint brought in New York by Pennsylvania residents against the plaintiffs' former employer and the employer's pension plan for benefits alleged to be due under ERISA, the district court's dismissal of the complaint as time-barred is affirmed, where: 1) the district court was correct in applying New York's borrowing statute directing it to look to Pennsylvania law for the applicable statute of limitations; and 2) plaintiffs' claims were untimely under Pennsylvania law.

More...

Government Contracts

[02/06] Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. US
In a suit brought by the former operator of a resort facility on federal land, seeking compensation from the United States for facilities that were allegedly retained and used by the Bureau of Land Management or by the resort operator's successor, the Court of Federal Claims' dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim is affirmed, where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding that the issues were identical to those in another case, and thus issue preclusion did not apply; but 2) the United States did not require the retention of the facilities under Public Law 96-375, so they remained the property of the resort operator and were abandoned.

[02/03] Sauer v. Dep't of Education
In a suit by a California state agency seeking review of an arbitration award that made it liable to a blind vendor for failing to sue the federal General Services Administration (GSA) to vindicate the rights of the vendor to conduct business on federal property, the district court's judgment affirming the award is reversed, where: 1) the arbitration panel committed a legal error when it interpreted the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Stand Act as requiring the state agency to bring an action against GSA, and that the agency's failure to do so made it liable for compensatory damages; and 2) because the arbitration panel's ruling was not in accordance with law, it had to be set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act.

[01/26] The DIRECTV Group, Inc. v. US
In a case involving the calculation and payment of segment closing adjustments associated with a corporation's sale of certain business units that included the transfer of defined benefit pension plans, the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting summary judgment in favor of the corporation is affirmed, where: 1) the Claims Court did not err by calculating segment closing adjustments based on the assets and liabilities of the entire segment, rather than only the assets and liabilities that the corporation retained; and 2) the Claims Court correctly determined that the corporation's segment closing obligations could be satisfied by the cost savings realized by the government in the successor contracts.

[01/25] US v. Hornsby
In a prosecution of the chief executive officer of Maryland’s Prince George’s County Public Schools for honest-services fraud, tampering with evidence, and obstruction of justice, convictions of honest-services fraud are reversed and convictions of tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice are affirmed with a remand for resentencing, where: 1) there was an erroneous jury instruction on honest-services wire fraud; 2) the district court did not err in admitting past-conduct evidence; 3) the district court did not err in denying a motion for severance of the tampering and obstruction counts from the honest-services fraud counts; 4) the district court did not err when it denied a motion in limine to suppress preindictment statements the defendant made to an undercover government informant; 5) the district court did not err in not giving a jury instruction that defined reasonable doubt; 6) there was no prejudicial spillover of evidence supporting the honest-services fraud counts that required the reversal of the tampering and obstruction convictions; and 7) it was not reasonably certain that the judge would have imposed the same sentences even if the erroneous charge of honest-services fraud had not been submitted to the jury.

More...