Legal News

Case Summaries

Family Law

[05/16] Marriage of Green
In a dispute between ex-spouses over the husband's CalPERS pension, which included four years of credit for past military service purchased with community funds, the trial court's characterization of the credit as the husband's separate property is reversed, where prior to the marriage, the husband's right to the credit amounted to no more than an expectancy, which is not a property right divisible upon dissolution of marriage, since he held no unconditional, contractual right to the payment of benefits, or even a nonvested right to such credit, before he actually purchased the credit during the marriage, using community funds.

[05/15] In re A.S.
In juvenile court proceedings involving a brother and sister whose permanent plan called for them to be placed in foster care: 1) an order permitting the siblings to be placed separately is affirmed, and 2) an order approving an application to administer psychotropic medication to the boy is affirmed, as California Rules of Court, rule 5.640(c)(8) comports with due process.

[05/14] In re B.C.
In a case in which a man filed a JV-505 statement, requested genetic testing to determine whether he was a biological father, and filed a declaration stating that he wished to meet his paternal obligations, the Court of Appeal holds that under California Rules of Court 5.635 it was error for the juvenile court to have authorized testing but to have required the man to pay for it, and to have failed to make a determination of biological paternity.

[05/14] Southerland v. City of New York
In a suit by a father and his children under 42 USC section 1983 asserting that a children's services caseworker employed by the City of New York entered their home unlawfully and effected an unconstitutional removal of the children into state custody, a grant of summary judgment to the caseworker is: 1) affirmed with respect to the father's substantive due process claim, under the "brief removal" doctrine, but 2) vacated with respect to the father's and children's Fourth Amendment unlawful-search and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims, and the children's Fourth Amendment unlawful-seizure claim.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[05/18] Crowther v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
In consolidated negligence actions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) against two railroad defendants brought by a former employee, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed, where: 1) no fact-finder could reasonably have inferred that the plaintiff first became aware of a work connection with his knee pain and neck injury within the period of limitation; 2) there was no error in entering judgment as a matter of law on negligence claims based on inadequate tools and failure to obtain ergonomic studies of the activities required to perform the plaintiff's various jobs; and 3) it was not reversible error to admit collateral source evidence that the plaintiff was receiving disability benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act.

[05/16] Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Stolberg
In a suit by an insurer to obtain a declaration that its policy did not obligate it either to defend a personal injury suit or to indemnify the insured, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the insurer is affirmed, where: 1) the contract excluded coverage for injuries arising out of operations performed for insured by contractors; and 2) other exclusions in the policy did not create ambiguity so as to provide coverage.

[05/11] Al Shimari v. CACI International, Inc.
In suits by former prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, alleging that the defendant prison contractors and certain of their employees were liable in common law tort and under the Alien Tort Statute for torturing and abusing them during their incarceration, consolidated appeals by the defendants are dismissed, where: 1) there was no independent basis for appellate jurisdiction premised on the law-of-war defense, Saleh preemption, or Mangold immunity, so the Fourth Circuit was without pendent jurisdiction to further consider the appellants' contentions that the plaintiffs' claims presented nonjusticiable political questions; and 2) the exercise of jurisdiction was precluded regardless of whether the appellants' political question defense was inextricably intertwined with any of the three proffered bases for jurisdiction, or whether those bases were similarly interdependent with one another.

[05/07] Bettencourt v. Hennessey Industries, Inc.
In a suit claiming that the use of the defendant's machines to grind asbestos-containing brake linings resulted in exposure to airborne asbestos fibers that caused injury, the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant on all causes of action is reversed in part, where it was error to grant judgment on the pleadings to the defendant and an abuse of discretion to deny the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints with respect to their causes of action for strict products liability and negligence.

Read More

Workers' Comp

[05/18] Crowther v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
In consolidated negligence actions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) against two railroad defendants brought by a former employee, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed, where: 1) no fact-finder could reasonably have inferred that the plaintiff first became aware of a work connection with his knee pain and neck injury within the period of limitation; 2) there was no error in entering judgment as a matter of law on negligence claims based on inadequate tools and failure to obtain ergonomic studies of the activities required to perform the plaintiff's various jobs; and 3) it was not reversible error to admit collateral source evidence that the plaintiff was receiving disability benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act.

[05/15] Harman Mining Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, DOL
In a case in which an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that a man suffered disabling obstructive lung disease arising out of his work as a coal miner and awarded his widow black lung benefits payable by his former employer, a petition for review is denied, where the award of benefits found support in the record and accorded with the Administrative Procedure Act, as the ALJ properly evaluated the appropriate weight to accord conflicting medical opinions.

[05/15] DMS Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (Zurich Services Corp.)
In a suit by a provider of commercial janitorial services against the third-party administrator for its workers' compensation insurance claims, a petition for writ of mandate seeking to vacate the trial court's order compelling arbitration is granted, where: 1) none of the plaintiffs' agreements with their administrator contained an arbitration clause; and 2) the trial court erred in compelling arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, because the plaintiffs' claims against the administrator were not founded in, or inextricably intertwined with, the deductible agreement with the insurer, which contained the arbitration clause.

[05/03] Bready v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
By memorandum, it is held that the Appellate Division properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in each of two consolidated cases, where the defendant made a prima facie showing that it did not breach the duty of care applicable under the Federal Employer's Liability Act.

Read More