Recent News

Case Summaries

Class Actions

[06/25] Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins., Co. v. Bezich
A petition for permission to appeal, arising from the district court's remand of plaintiff's class action lawsuit against an insurer for breach of contract claims on the basis that CAFA's exception to federal jurisdiction for the action applied, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiff's claim "related to the rights, duties,...and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to...a security," as defined in the Securities Act of 1933.

[06/24] Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assoc. Inc.
In a suit brought by about 4000 current and former employees against an employer, claiming that the company, which provides security guard services throughout Southern California, denied meal and rest breaks and failed to pay for overtime, trial court's denial of their motion for class certification is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) order denying the motion for class certification as to the meal break class and the rest break class is affirmed as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding common issues of law and fact did not predominate over individual issues; and 2) order denying the motion for class certification as to the overtime-pay class is reversed and remanded.

[06/24] Brown v. Kelly
In a class action by persons allegedly arrested pursuant to an unconstitutional New York anti-begging statute, the district court's class certification order is affirmed in part where the citywide plaintiff class met the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). However, the order is reversed in part where the district court erred in certifying a statewide defendant class because the defendant class representatives did not meet the adequacy and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), and the district court also erred in certifying a statewide plaintiff class because the certification of this class was contingent on the bilateral certification of both a statewide plaintiff and a statewide defendant class.

More...

Government Contracts

[06/24] US v. Jackson
District court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment for making false statements on "a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government," in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1001, is affirmed as, defendant's false statements on his time-sheets, which were transmitted to the prime contractor, and from the prime contractor to the National Security Agency (NSA), and ultimately paid by the NSA, are matters within the jurisdiction of the executive branch under section 1001.

[06/22] US Ex Rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Int'l. Const., Inc.
In a False Claims Act (FCA) action claiming that five companies and one individual rigged the bidding on three contracts in Egypt funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) the government's claims concerning one contract were not barred by the statute of limitations because they related back to plaintiff's original timely complaint; 2) although the false claims provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act and the FCA did overlap, the two statutes were fully capable of coexisting. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) certain of plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations because he added them after the limitation period had run; and 2) allowing the government to contradict a factual stipulation called into question the credibility of defendant's counsel, severely impeding counsel's ability to effectively advocate for his client.

[06/17] M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. US
In plaintiff's breach of contract suit against the government under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), arising from a contract awarded by the Navy to replace windows and a roof at a Naval warehouse building, decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing the complaint and grant of the government's counterclaim for liquidated damages is affirmed where: 1) the Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed plaintiff's claim for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiff did not meet the jurisdictional prerequisites of a claim against the government for contract modification under the CDA; and 2) the grant of summary judgment to the government on its counterclaim for liquidated damages is affirmed as the court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim for time extensions and because plaintiff's extension claim was the only defense asserted against the government's counterclaim for liquidated damages.

More...