FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[08/19] Oltman v. Holland Am. Line, Inc.
In an action alleging that plaintiffs both contracted a serious gastrointestinal illness on a cruise ship operated by defendants, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where a contractual one-year limitations period should have been equitably tolled based on plaintiffs' timely filing of a state court action and their prompt filing in federal court after the state action was dismissed based on a forum selection clause.

[08/19] Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods, L.L.C.
In a class-action suit alleging injury caused by methylmercury and other harmful compounds in defendant's canned tuna products, grant of a motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded where: 1) the FDA had not enacted a pervasive regulatory scheme regarding mercury in tuna that would preempt plaintiff's state-law claims; 2) the FDA's decision not to require warning labels on tuna was not a conclusive determination preempting a state failure-to-warn claim; and 3) the FDA had not expressly rejected mercury warnings as misbranding under federal law.

[08/19] Joyce v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
In a suit by shareholders of a telecommunications company alleging that defendant, while advising the company during its acquisition by another company, failed to advise plaintiffs on minimizing their exposure to financial losses, grant of a motion to dismiss is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) plaintiffs were bringing a direct action on their own behalf, not a derivative one on behalf of the corporation, and to that extent had standing; but 2) plaintiffs' constructive fraud claim required them to allege that defendant owed them a fiduciary duty, but no such duty never arose.

[08/19] King v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co.
In a malicious prosecution suit alleging that defendant fired plaintiff without probable cause to believe that she had stolen train tickets, denial of plaintiff's discovery motion and summary judgment for defendants are affirmed where: 1) a determination by the System Board of Adjustment that plaintiff had stolen from defendant did not preclude litigation of that question in the context of the malicious prosecution suit; but 2) plaintiff failed to produce evidence of the date on which defendant had filed a criminal complaint against her, and thus would not be able to prove her claim that defendant lacked probable cause at the time of the filing.

[08/19] US v. Flaherty
In an action brought under the False Claims Act alleging that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided a reimbursement check to defendant as a result of a fraudulent scheme, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where qui tam actions cannot be brought pro se.

[08/19] Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.
In wrongful death claims brought by plaintiff-estates against defendant rental car companies, grant of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Graves Amendment, a federal tort reform statute which purports to shield rental car companies from certain vicarious liability suits, preempts the tort claims at issue; and 2) the statute is within the boundaries of Congress's Article I powers.

[08/18] Walter v. Drayson
In an action brought by one of four siblings who are beneficiaries of a trust created by their mother asserting violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and state laws, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) contrary to plaintiff's claim, the district court did not misapprehend the "operation and management" test in the context of an associated-in-fact enterprise; and 2) due to a lack of federal question jurisdiction, state law claims were properly dismissed under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

[08/18] Ibrahim v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
In an action involving the claims of a Malaysian Muslim passenger detained at a U.S. airport because her name is on the federal government's No-Fly List, dismissal of claims against various defendants is affirmed in part, but reversed in part and remanded where: 1) contrary to the ruling below, the district court retains original jurisdiction over plaintiff's APA claim regarding placement of her name on the No-Fly List pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331; and 2) Bivens claims and state-law claims against defendant-TSA employee were improperly dismissed.

More...