Case Summaries

International Law

[11/19] Budiono v. Mukasey
Petition for review of denial of application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture is denied where: 1) Board of Immigration Appeals can adopt part of the Immigration Judge's decision and add its own analysis; 2) substantial evidence supported the determination that the harms Christian, ethnic Chinese-petitioner suffered in Indonesia did not constitute persecution; and 3) substantial evidence supported the IJ's and BIA's determination that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in light of the fact that her family continues to live in relative safety in Indonesia.

[11/17] Manco Contracting Co. v. Bezdikian
In an action by a Qatari company seeking to domesticate its Qatari judgment against defendant, reversal of judgment against defendant is affirmed where: 1) if a foreign nation's rule is that judgments are final even though an appeal is pending, a judgment may be recognized in California despite an appeal; and 2) if the foreign nation's rule is that judgments are not final while an appeal is pending, a judgment on appeal cannot be recognized in California.

[11/12] Balachova v. Mukasey
Review of decision directing removal of husband and wife petitioners to Russia and denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture is dismissed in part, granted in part, and the order of removal is vacated where: 1) wife-petitioner's claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; 2) there were numerous errors in assessing husband-petitioner's applications for asylum and withholding of removal; 3) IJ's conclusion that husband-petitioner must have participated in the stated abuse because he equivocated the meaning of "rape" was not supported by substantial evidence; and 4) wife-petitioner may be eligible for derivative relief based on her husband's application.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[11/21] Royall v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO
In an employment-discrimination case, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where there was no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that defendant's reason for terminating plaintiff's employment was a pretext for unlawful discrimination.

[11/21] Martin v. Toledo Cardiology Consultants, Inc.
In a case brought by plaintiff-employee lab technician under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-employer cardiology office and dismissal of case is reversed and remanded where: 1) in addressing the plaintiff-employee's prima facie age discrimination case, the district court impermissibly made factual determinations and improperly drew inferences in favor solely of the defendant; and similarly 2) with the retaliation claim, the district court impermissibly made factual findings and did not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the non-moving party.

[11/20] Artesia Dairy v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd.
Defendant-Labor Board's decision excluding certain persons employed by plaintiff-dairy from voting on the United Farm Workers of America's (UFW) petition to represent plaintiff's agricultural employees is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) the nephews of plaintiff's owners did not fall under the regulation that excluded the owner's children from voter eligibility; 2) based on the evidence presented, defendant correctly concluded that the individual who maintained the lawn area around the dairy was not an agricultural employee; 3) it was appropriate for defendant to apply a substantiality test in determining whether an individual who engaged in childcare and cleaning was an agricultural employee; and 4) substantial evidence supported defendant's conclusion that the two individuals with supervisory duties were supervisors and thus ineligible to vote.

More...

Commercial Law

[11/18] Surrey v. TrueBeginnings
In a case of first impression in California involving an online matchmaking service, someone who presents him or herself to a business with the intent of purchasing its services or products, but becomes aware of that business's practice of charging different amounts for such services or products based on gender and thereafter does not purchase those services or products, is not aggrieved by that practice so as to have standing to sue for violations of the Unruh Act and the Gender Tax Repeal Act. The court adopts a bright-line rule that a person must tender the purchase price for a business's services or products in order to have standing to sue it for alleged discriminatory practices relating thereto.

[11/14] Cadles of Grassy Meadows II, LLC v. Goldner
Petition for panel rehearing granted, prior opinion withdrawn, and matter remanded for further proceedings in light of Kerlin v. Sauceda, 05-0653 (Tex. October 10, 2008).

[07/29] Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.
Denial of the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction against the merger of the Whole Foods and Wild Oats supermarket chains is reversed and remanded where: 1) the case was not moot despite the merger's having already occurred; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the market definition proposed by the FTC, in which Whole Foods and Wild Oats compete in the "premium, natural, and organic supermarkets" (PNOS) market, not against all supermarkets; 3) the FTC met the threshold requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction by demonstrating a likelihood of success on its claim that the two supermarkets did compete in the PNOS market; and 4) the district court was best positioned to balance the FTC's showing against the equities weighing against an injunction. (Amended and reissued opinion)

More...

Corp. Governance

[11/20] Vasquez v. State of California
In a taxpayer cause of action brought against the state for violating Proposition 139, known as the Prison Inmate Labor Initiative of 1990, by failing to collect and disburse payments due from joint venture programs with private employers within state prisons, award of attorneys' fees to plaintiff-company representive under the "private attorney general statute", Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, is affirmed where: 1) no rule applicable to this case required plaintiff first to attempt to settle the matter short of litigation; 2) the present case is not a catalyst case because plaintiff successfully obtained a stipulated injunction that was entered as a judgment and thus brought about a judicially recognized change in the parties' legal relationship; and 3) the "limitations on the catalyst theory" adopted in Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. did not properly apply here.

[11/14] Perry v. Cohen
In a shareholder suit alleging misrepresentations about the financial situation of a corporation, dismissal of all claims for failure to copmly with an order granting special exceptions is reversed where the shareholders did not waive their challenge to the merits of the order sustaining the exceptions.

[11/13] Mosier v. Callister, Nebeker & McCullough
In a suit brought by the trustee of the bankruptcy estate of a nonprofit organization against a law firm and two of its attorneys alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and civil conspiracy, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err by imputing the conduct of certain offers to the nonprofit; 2) it correctly applied the doctrine of in pari delicto in holding as a matter of law that the nonprofit's misconduct, as evidenced by the actions of its officers and directors, was greater than defendants' fault in failing to counsel the nonprofit; and 3) there was no error in applying the doctrine against a trustee in bankruptcy.

More...