Latest 10 Cases This Week: Porter v. Nabors Drilling USA, L.P. (9th Cir.), Barnwell v. CLP Corporation (Ala.), Neiman v. Bulmahn (5th Cir.)

Latest 10 Cases This Week: Porter v. Nabors Drilling USA, L.P. (9th Cir.), Barnwell v. CLP Corporation (Ala.), Neiman v. Bulmahn (5th Cir.)
  
Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Associate Degree in Architecture, LACCBachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED-GREEN Certificate The Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners Since 1984*630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 CellWebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/rESUME2011.pdf Commercial Appraiser Blog: http://commercialappraiser.typepad.com/blog/ IT'S THE LAW-Designation Discrimination is Illegal [FIRREA, Sec. 564.6]: Professional Association Membership: "A State Certified General Appraiser may not be excluded from consideration for an assignment for a federally related transaction by virtue of membership or lack of membership in any particular appraisal organization," including the appraisal institute. http://www.ofi.state.la.us/re-otspart565.pdf CONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal.
 
From: Business Law - Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Business Law - Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries
Sent: Friday, 28 April, 2017 7:04 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Latest 10 Cases This Week: Porter v. Nabors Drilling USA, L.P. (9th Cir.), Barnwell v. CLP Corporation (Ala.), Neiman v. Bulmahn (5th Cir.)

 
Free Business Law case summaries from Justia.

If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.Business Law
April 28, 2017

Table of ContentsPorter v. Nabors Drilling USA, L.P.Bankruptcy, Business Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitBarnwell v. CLP CorporationBusiness Law, Civil Procedure, Personal Injury Supreme Court of AlabamaNeiman v. BulmahnBusiness Law, Securities Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitCity & Cty. of Denver v. Expedia, Inc.Business Law, Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law Colorado Supreme CourtRocky MountaIn Retail Mgmt. v. City of NorthglennBusiness Law, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law Colorado Supreme CourtKS&E Sports v. RunnelsBusiness Law, Personal Injury Supreme Court of IndianaBlackrock Capital Investment Corp. v. FishBusiness Law, Contracts Supreme Court of Appeals of West VirginiaJacked Up, LLC v. Sara Lee Corp.Business Law, Contracts U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitF5 Capital v. PappasBusiness Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second CircuitWash. Trucking Ass'ns v. Emp't Sec. Dep'tBusiness Law, Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law Washington Supreme Court

New on VerdictLegal Analysis and CommentaryMr. No-Government President Discovers the Government MARCI A. HAMILTON Marci A. Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, describes how the separation of powers built into U.S. democracy is working as it should to prevent abuses of power by, at this time, the executive.Read More

Business Law OpinionsPorter v. Nabors Drilling USA, L.P. Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDocket: 15-16985 Opinion Date: April 20, 2017Judge: Richard R. Clifton Areas of Law: Bankruptcy, Business Law Movant-Appellee Nabors Drilling USA, L.P. filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. That filing triggered the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. 362(a)(1), which generally applied to protect a debtor after it has filed for bankruptcy protection. The question presented in this case was whether that stay applied to a lawsuit filed by appellant-plaintiff Jeremy Porter, who has asserted a claim under California’s Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). Porter contended the exception established in 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(4) applied to exempt his PAGA claim from the automatic stay. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the exception does not apply to a claim brought by a private party under PAGA, and therefore granted Nabors’s motion to recognize the automatic stay.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.Barnwell v. CLP Corporation Court: Supreme Court of AlabamaDocket: 1151329 Opinion Date: April 21, 2017Judge: Tom Parker Areas of Law: Business Law, Civil Procedure, Personal Injury Andrew Barnwell appealed the grant of summary judgment entered in favor of CLP Corporation ("CLP"). CLP owned and operated a McDonald's fast-food restaurant. In 2013, Barnwell visited the restaurant. Barnwell stated that after he entered the restaurant, he went straight to the restroom to wash his hands. Upon exiting the restroom, Barnwell alleged he slipped and fell, and complained of leg and back pain shortly thereafter. Barnwell sued CLP, asserting a claim of negligence. After a review of the facts entered in the trial court record, the Supreme Court held the circuit court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of CLP. "CLP failed to present substantial evidence supporting its affirmative defense that the [floor's] condition that allegedly caused Barnwell to slip and fall was an open and obvious danger."Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.Neiman v. Bulmahn Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitDocket: 15-31094 Opinion Date: April 21, 2017Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson Areas of Law: Business Law, Securities Law Plaintiffs, shareholders of ATP, filed a securities class action concerning ATP's collapse into bankruptcy. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants, each of whom was an officer or director of ATP, misrepresented the production of Well 941 #4, ATP's liquidity and whether the company had the available funds to complete the Clipper pipeline, and the true reason that Matt McCarroll resigned as CEO of ATP. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. The court concluded that, viewing plaintiffs' allegations as a whole, plaintiffs failed adequately to allege scienter with regard to Defendant Reese's statements; plaintiffs' allegations of scienter as to ATP's liquidity and the Clipper project failed as a matter of law; and there was no basis for the court to conclude that Defendants Bulmahn and Reese knew or were reckless in not knowing McCarroll's true reasons for resigning. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.City & Cty. of Denver v. Expedia, Inc. Court: Colorado Supreme CourtCitation: 2017 CO 32 Opinion Date: April 24, 2017Judge: Coats Areas of Law: Business Law, Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law In July 2010, the City and County of Denver issued nine Notices of Final Determination, Assessment and Demand for Payment against various online travel companies: Expedia, Inc.; Hotels.com LP; Hotwire, Inc.; Orbitz, LLC; Trip Network, Inc.; Priceline.com Incorporated; Travelweb, LLC; Site59.com, LLC; and Travelocity.com LP. The Notices claimed unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest due according to the city lodger’s tax article, for the period from January 2001 through April 2010, totaling over $40 million. These online companies filed nearly identical protests, requesting hearings before a Denver Department of Finance hearing officer, and the protests were consolidated by stipulation. Denver petitioned for review of the court of appeals opinion reversing the judgment of the district court and remanding with directions to vacate the subject tax assessments against respondent online travel companies (“OTCs”). The district court had largely upheld the hearing officer’s denial of protests. Unlike the hearing officer and district court, the court of appeals concluded that the city lodger’s tax article was at least ambiguous with regard to both the purchase price paid or charged for lodging, upon which the tax is to be levied, and the status of the OTCs as vendors, upon which the ordinance imposes the responsibility to collect the tax and remit it to the city; and the intermediate appellate court considered itself obligated to resolve all ambiguities in the lodger’s tax article, being a tax statute, in favor of the OTCs. The Colorado Supreme Court found the “fair and reasonable interpretation” of Denver’s lodger’s tax article was that it imposed a duty on the OTCs to collect and remit the prescribed tax on the purchase price of any lodging they sell, to include not only the amount they have contracted with the hotel to charge and return but also the amount of their markup. The judgment of the court of appeals was therefore reversed, and the matter was remanded for consideration of the remaining issues raised on appeal by the parties.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.Rocky MountaIn Retail Mgmt. v. City of Northglenn Court: Colorado Supreme CourtCitation: 2017 CO 33 Opinion Date: April 24, 2017Judge: Monica M. Márquez Areas of Law: Business Law, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law Rocky Mountain Retail Management, LLC, d/b/a Rocky Mountain High, filed an application for a license to operate a medical marijuana center in the City of Northglenn. The Northglenn City Council, acting as the City’s medical marijuana local licensing authority, denied Rocky Mountain’s application after receiving evidence at two public hearings. Rocky Mountain sought judicial review of the City’s decision in the district court, arguing that the denial was not based on substantial evidence in the record and was therefore arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. Rocky Mountain also asked the district court to declare certain licensing provisions of the Northglenn City Code unconstitutionally vague, including section 18-14-7(h), which sets forth factors a local licensing authority may consider before approving or denying a medical marijuana center license. The district court ruled that section 18-14-7(h) was unconstitutionally vague, and that the City’s denial of the license in reliance on that invalid provision was arbitrary and capricious. The City appealed. Because the phrase “number, type, and availability” in section 18-14-7(h) provided sufficient notice to applicants and reasonably constrained the exercise of the City’s discretion, the Colorado Supreme Court held section 18-14-7(h) was not void for vagueness. Furthermore, the Court held that the City’s decision to deny Rocky Mountain’s license application was supported by substantial evidence in the record, and therefore was not arbitrary and capricious.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.KS&E Sports v. Runnels Court: Supreme Court of IndianaDocket: 49S02-1606-CT-349 Opinion Date: April 24, 2017Judge: Slaughter Areas of Law: Business Law, Personal Injury Police officer Dwayne Runnels suffered serious injuries after he was shot by Demetrious Martin. Martin, a convicted felon who could not legally purchase or possess a firearm, received the firearm by Tarus Blackburn, who made a “straw purchase” for the firearm from KS&E Sports. Runnels filed a complaint against KS&E; Blackburn; and Edward Ellis, a KS&E officer, director, and shareholder. KS&E and Ellis moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Ind. Code 34-12-3-3(2) granted them immunity. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Runnel’s negligence, piercing-the-corporate-veil, and civil-conspiracy claims, which demand only money damages, must be dismissed because section 34-12-3-3(2) functions as a limited immunity statute that insulates KS&E from suits for “recovery of damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm…by a third party”; (2) the statute does not immunize KS&E from Runnel’s public-nuisance claim seeking equitable relief; and (3) the statute is not preempted by federal law and does not violate either the state or federal Constitution.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.Blackrock Capital Investment Corp. v. Fish Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West VirginiaDocket: 15-1122 Opinion Date: April 24, 2017Judge: Menis E. Ketchum, II Areas of Law: Business Law, Contracts A subsidiary company brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment against its parent companies, challenging three management agreements by which the parent companies controlled, managed, and participated in the affairs of the subsidiary. The subsidiary argued that two clauses in the agreements were unconscionable because one stated that the parent companies could never be liable to the subsidiary company and the other required the subsidiary to indemnify the parent companies for all legal and liability costs. The circuit court declared that the two clauses at issue were unconscionable and unenforceable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the two challenged clauses were unconscionable because the clauses were oppressive and unfair.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.Jacked Up, LLC v. Sara Lee Corp. Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitDocket: 15-11019 Opinion Date: April 25, 2017Judge: Edward C. Prado Areas of Law: Business Law, Contracts Jacked Up and Sara Lee signed a licensing agreement whereby Sara Lee would produce and sell energy drinks developed by Jacked Up. Sara Lee sold its beverage division to the J.M. Smucker Company and Smucker decided not to assume Sara Lee's licensing agreement. After Sara Lee formally terminated the agreement, Jacked Up filed suit against Sara Lee, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and fraudulent inducement. Jacked Up joined claims against Smucker for, among other things, tortious interference with a contract and trade secret misappropriation. The district court granted summary judgment against Jacked Up on all claims. In regard to claims against Sara Lee, the court reversed the district court's conclusion that Section 14(b) of the agreement unambiguously permitted Sara Lee to terminate the licensing agreement at will; there are genuine disputes about whether Sara Lee breached the contract and whether Jacked Up performed under the contract, and thus the court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Sara Lee on Jacked Up's breach of contract claim; the court affirmed as to the breach of fiduciary claim because Jacked Up failed to point to sufficient evidence that would support finding a fiduciary relationship between the parties; the court reversed as to the fraud and fraudulent inducement claim because, at the very least, there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether Jacked Up's reliance on Sara Lee's representations was justifiable. In regard to claims against Smucker, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Smucker on the tortious interference claim; affirmed as to the trade secret misappropriation claim; affirmed the denial of Jacked Up's Rule 56(d) motion for a continuance; and the court left it to the district court to determine whether Jacked Up has put forth sufficient evidence of damages.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.F5 Capital v. Pappas Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second CircuitDocket: 16-530 Opinion Date: April 26, 2017Judge: Gerard E. Lynch Areas of Law: Business Law F5, a Cayman Islands corporation that invests in international shipping companies, filed a shareholder derivative action on behalf of Star Bulk, a global shipping company, alleging that individual members of Star Bulk's board and affiliated entities improperly exploited their control over the corporation in executing three separate transactions. F5's complaint included four causes of action, three of which were derivative and one of which purported to be a direct class-action claim for wrongful equity dilution. In this case, F5 did not seek intracorporate remedies by making a pre-suit demand on Star Bulk's board of directors. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the dilution claim was properly derivative under Delaware law and that F5 failed to plead demand futility under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1(b)(3)(B), as to any of the claims. The court affirmed, concluding that F5's dilution claim was properly derivative, not direct; the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the non-class, derivative claims; and F5 did not allege facts sufficient to excuse it from making a pre-suit demand.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.Wash. Trucking Ass'ns v. Emp't Sec. Dep't Court: Washington Supreme CourtDocket: 93079-1 Opinion Date: April 27, 2017Judge: Debra Stephens Areas of Law: Business Law, Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law The principal issue in this case was whether taxpayers could bring federal or state tort claims to challenge tax assessments, or instead must rely on the normal state tax appeals process. The taxpayers here are trucking companies that were assessed unemployment taxes after the Washington State Employment Security Department audited and reclassified their employment relationship with owner-operators who owned and leased out their own trucking equipment. The trucking companies, joined by their trade organization, Washington Trucking Associations, brought this suit asserting a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and a state common law claim for tortious interference with business expectancies. The superior court dismissed the suit, holding that the trucking companies must challenge the tax assessments through the state tax appeals process. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that the comity principle precluded the section 1983 claim only "to the extent that [Washington Trucking Associations] and the [trucking companies] seek damages based on the amounts of the assessments, but not to the extent that they seek damages independent of the assessment amounts." The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the superior court's dismissal of both the federal and state claims.Read Opinion Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion SummariesJustia Weekly Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 63 different newsletters, each covering a different practice area.Justia also provides 68 daily jurisdictional newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all U.S. states.All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.You may freely redistribute this email in whole.About JustiaJustia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Contact Us| Privacy Policy
Unsubscribe From This Newsletter
or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.


Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043