Legal News

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[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.

[01/27] C9 Ventures v. SVC-West, L.P.
In a personal injury suit in which a lessor of helium-filled tanks used to inflate festive balloons cross-complained against the lessee to enforce an indemnification provision on the back of an unsigned invoice, the trial court's judgment in favor of the lessor and award of attorney fees to it is reversed, where: 1) the lessee did not manifest assent to the terms on the back of the unsigned invoice by course of dealing or course of performance, or under basic contract law; 2) the lessee did not sign the invoice or otherwise expressly agree to its terms; 3) an unsigned invoice itself is not a contract, and repeated delivery of a particular form does not make the form part of the parties' agreement; 4) payment of the invoice merely constituted the lessee's performance of the obligation under the oral contract to pay for the rental of the helium-filled tanks; and 5) assuming the transaction was a sale of goods covered by division 2 of the California Commercial Code, the indemnification provision was not an additional term of the contract under section 2207 of the Commercial Code.

[01/24] Long v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A. Inc.
In a putative class action against a men's clothing retailer alleging that its printing of “EXPIRY: 04/##” on a credit card receipt willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA)'s prohibition against printing the expiration date of the a credit card upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed, where: 1) FACTA prohibits a merchant from printing expiration date information on a receipt provided to the consumer, even if the year is redacted; but 2) the defendant's interpretation of FACTA, although erroneous, was at least objectively reasonable, and thus there was no "willful" violation that could support a claim.

[01/24] Mabey Bridge & Shore, Inc. v. Schoch
In a suit by a corporation engaged in the business of supplying temporary steel bridges for construction projects, seeking a declaration that the Pennsylvania Steel Products Procurement Act, as interpreted and enforced by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), is unconstitutional, and requesting a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining PennDOT from prohibiting the use of the company's temporary bridges on its projects, the district court's grant of summary judgment against the company on all its claims is affirmed, where: 1) the state Steel Act was not preempted by the federal Buy America Act and related federal regulations; 2) the Steel Act is not unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause; 3) PennDOT's actions did not violate the Contract Clause; and 4) PennDOT's application of the Steel Act did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Read More

Immigration Law

[02/07] Mendoza-Pablo v. Holder
A petition for review of a BIA decision denying applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture is granted, as a child may be said to have suffered persecution and therefore be eligible for asylum where: 1) a pregnant mother is persecuted in a manner that materially impedes her ability to provide for the basic needs of her child; 2) that child's family has undisputedly suffered severe persecution; and 3) the newborn child suffers serious deprivations directly attributable not only to those facts, but also to the material ongoing threat of continued persecution of the child and the child's family.

[02/06] US v. Reyes-Bonilla
In a prosecution for being a deported alien found in the United States without permission, the conviction is affirmed, where: 1) the defendant was deprived of the opportunity for judicial review of his prior removal order, and was exempt from the administrative-remedies exhaustion requirement because did not validly waive his right of appeal; and 2) the defendant was not properly advised of his due process right to counsel nor did he waive this right; but 3) this due process violation was not per se prejudicial; and 4) the defendant could not demonstrate that he had a plausible claim to relief at the time of removal proceedings, so he was not actually prejudiced as a result of the due process violations, and entry of the removal order was not fundamentally unfair.

[02/03] Diaz Ruano v. Holder
On petition for review of a BIA decision that affirmed the decision of an immigration judge denying the petitioner's application for withholding of removal and protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on claims that he would be subjected to persecution on account of his membership in the social groups of young males targeted by the criminal gangs in Guatemala for recruitment or because of opposition to gangs, and in the group of persons of perceived wealth returning from the United States, the petition is denied, where substantial evidence supported the determinations that: 1) the petitioner failed to show that it was more likely than not that, if removed to Guatemala, he would suffer persecution on account of his membership in a socially visible, sufficiently particular social group; and 2) the petitioner failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be subject to torture upon his return to Guatemala.

[02/02] US v. Rivera-Santana
In a sentencing challenge after the appellant was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States after being removed for a conviction of an aggravated felony, the sentencing court's judgment order is affirmed, where: 1) two upward departures in the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, augmented by an upward variance of 90 months therefrom, were not procedurally unreasonable; and 2) the resulting sentence, which was the statutory maximum, was not substantively unreasonable.

Read More

International Law

[02/01] US v. Lyttle
In a prosecution for numerous offenses relating to the defendant's involvement in a fraudulent high-yield investment program, before which the district court had granted a government application to suspend the statute of limitations pursuant to 18 USC section 3292 while the government sought the assistance of the Hungarian government in recovering records relating to transfers of the scheme’s proceeds into Hungarian bank accounts, the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment on statute of limitations grounds is affirmed, where: 1) the evidence was sufficient to support the district court’s order; 2) section 3292 does not require that the foreign evidence sought be necessary for an indictment, nor that it be obtainable only through an official request to a foreign government; and 3) district courts may rely on ex parte proceedings when deciding to issue section 3292 orders.

[01/26] Chevron Corp. v. Naranjo
In a case in which a potential judgment-debtor sought a global anti-enforcement injunction against defendants from the Lago Agrio region of the Ecuadorian Amazon, prohibiting them from attempting to enforce an allegedly fraudulent judgment entered by an Ecuadorian court, the district court's grant of the injunction is reversed with orders to dismiss the claim, where the district court erred in construing New York’s Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act to grant the putative judgment-debtors a cause of action to challenge foreign judgments before enforcement of those judgments was sought.

[12/29] Wye Oak Technology, Inc. v. Republic of Iraq
In an appeal from a judgment of the district denying defendant's motion to dismiss, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiff's action for breach of a contract, judgment is affirmed because for purposes of analyzing subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a foreign state and its armed forces are not separate legal persons.

[12/29] Garcia v. USICE (Dept. of Homeland Security)
In a case seeking removal of a lawful permanent resident who asserted that he obtained US citizenship as a minor in the custody of his naturalized father after divorce, the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for a hearing on which parent had "actual uncontested custody," where the district court erred in relying on an unenforceable custody award from the Dominican Republic.

Read More

International Trade

[12/22] US v. Twenty Miljam-350 IED Jammers
In a case seeking civil in rem forfeiture, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. Section 401(a), of certain communication-jamming devices that the owner was charged with illegally attempting to export, the district court's judgment ordering forfeiture is affirmed where: 1) the claimant's stipulation not to contest forfeiture in exchange for dismissal of a criminal complaint was enforceable; and 2) the claimant lacked Article III standing to oppose the forfeiture because it could not cause him injury.

[12/19] GPX International Tire Corp. v. US
In an appeal from an order of the Court of International Trade sustaining a decision by the Commerce Department not to impose countervailing duties on certain Chinese tire manufacturers, judgment is affirmed where Congress, when amending and reenacting countervailing duty laws in 1988 and 1994, legislatively ratified earlier consistent administrative and judicial interpretations that government payments cannot be characterized as "subsidies" in a non-market economy (NME) context, and thus that the countervailing duty statute, 19 USC section 1671, does not apply to NME countries such as The People's Republic of China.

[10/31] Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc. v. US
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiff's action for duty-free treatment of certain plasma flat panel television imports from Mexico, judgment is affirmed where the trial court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction.

[10/24] US v. Banki
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court convicting defendant of violating the Iranian Transactions Regulations and several related offenses, conviction and sentencing are vacated with respect to the counts for operating, and aiding and abetting an unlicensed money-transmitting business in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1660, but otherwise upheld.

Read More