 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bar News - January 20, 2006 US District Court Decision Listing – December 2005 * Published ARBITRATION 12/15/05 James W. McCarthy v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. Civil No. 04-cv-477-JD, Opinion No. 2005 McCarthy brought a second action seeking to vacate the decision of a second panel of arbitrators, denying his claims that the Capital Accumulation Plan, which he participated in while employed by his former employer, Citigroup, violated the New Hampshire Wages Laws. After the court had previously remanded the case for arbitration under the New Hampshire Wage Laws, which both sides agreed applied to McCarthy’s claims, the second panel denied his claims without a reasoned decision, stating only that it had fully considered the claims and defenses “including the applicability of the New Hampshire Wage Laws.” Because there was no question that the Wage Laws applied and because there was no arguable or plausible basis for the panel’s decision other than that the panel disregarded the applicable law in favor of an argument made by Citigroup based on New York law, the court vacated the panel’s award and remanded the case for further arbitration. 18 pages. Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 12/19/05 Marquez-Marin v. Gonzales, et al. Designated No. 05-ds-247-SM, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 167 Plaintiff, a former Assistant United States Attorney in Puerto Rico, brought this action against the United States Attorney for that district, alleging that he violated her constitutionally protected right to due process when he allegedly published false and defamatory statements about plaintiff in connection with terminating her employment, without affording her a name-clearing hearing. The court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that merely sharing the allegedly defamatory statements with other supervisors in the office did not amount to the type of “publication” necessary for plaintiff to prevail on her due process claims. Alternatively, because of the unsettled nature of the case law on that issue, the court concluded that defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity. 25 pages. Chief Judge Steven J. McAuliffe. EMPLOYMENT 12/29/05 Engelhardt v. S.P. Richards Co. et al. Case No. 04-cv-120-PB, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 171 Plaintiff alleged that her employer violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by terminating her employment after she missed work to care for her daughter. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the employer and its parent company qualify as an integrated employer for purposes of triggering FMLA coverage. The court found that the subsidiary is responsible for its own employment decisions and there is little integration with the parent company’s operations and management. Thus, the court concluded that the parent and subsidiary do not qualify as an integrated employer. 8 pages. Judge Paul J. Barbadoro. HABEAS CORPUS 28 U.S.C. § 2254 12/20/05 Randolph L. Chambers v. Bruce W. Cattell, Warden Civil No. 04-cv-258-JD, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 170 Chambers sought habeas corpus relief from his conviction and sentence on heroin charges, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of a speedy trial, and double jeopardy. The court denied the warden’s motion for summary judgment on the ground of procedural default because the state court did not articulate an independent and adequate state law ground for its decision. On the merits of the claims, however, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the warden, concluding that Chambers’ counsel was not constitutionally ineffective because use of a deposition at trial did not violate the Sixth Amendment, that the delay in Chambers’ trial was not sufficiently long to violate his right to a speedy trial, and evidence of his sale of heroin, which was the basis of Chambers’ previous conviction for selling, introduced at his conspiracy trial did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. 12 pages. Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. PRISONERS’ RIGHTS 12/20/05 Christopher Beltran v. James O’Mara et al. Civil No. 04-cv-071-JD, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 169 The defendants, a correctional superintendent and a number of correctional officers, moved to dismiss an inmate’s complaint, alleging claims of physical abuse and unconstitutional conditions of confinement, on the grounds that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before suing as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Because prison officials had told the inmate that he could not file grievances over incidents that had also given rise to disciplinary proceedings against him, the court determined that the inmate had exhausted his administrative remedies under the Act by pursuing his claims as part of the disciplinary process, even though he did not file grievances as prescribed by the jail’s rules. The court also ruled that the inmate’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies as to some of the claims brought in his complaint did not require the dismissal of the complaint in its entirety. 48 pages. Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. STATE EMPLOYMENT LAW, RSA 354-A:19 12/15/05 Michael R. Jones v. McFarland Ford Sales, Inc., et al. Civil No. 05-cv-347-JD, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 163 After he was fired from McFarland Ford Sales, Inc., Jones brought federal and state employment claims against McFarland, its president, and Jones’s supervisor. The individual defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on Jones’s retaliation claim brought pursuant to RSA 354-A:19, asserting that no individual liability exists under the statute. The court interpreted the statute to impose liability for retaliation in the employment context only on the employer, not on individuals. Therefore, judgment on the pleadings was granted as to that claim against the individual defendants. 7 pages. Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. TAX 12/19/05 Davis v. United States Civil No. 04-cv-273-SM, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 168 In 1989, the decedent won the Massachusetts state lottery and received the first of 20 annual payments of approximately $200,000 from the Commonwealth. Nine years later, after receiving 10 annuity payments, he died. Subsequently, his estate brought this action for tax refund, challenging the IRS’s method of valuing the remaining annuity payments due from the Commonwealth. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The IRS urged the court to simply use the annuity valuation tables found in the Internal Revenue Code and pertinent regulations, while the estate urged the court to value the annuity based upon the opinion of a valuation expert. The court denied the parties’ motions, concluding that while the annuity tables did not necessarily reflect the “true” fair market value of the annuity at issue (due to its non-assignable, non-marketable nature), departure from those tables is only appropriate when the value yielded by the tables is so unreasonable and unrealistic under the particular circumstances that an alternate valuation method is warranted. That question - whether the tables yield an unreasonable and unrealistic valuation - turns on resolution of a genuinely disputed material fact, thereby precluding the entry of summary judgment. 21 pages. Chief Judge Steven J. McAuliffe. UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND QUANTUM MERUIT 12/15/05 Eastern Electrical Corp. v. FERD Construction, Inc. and BAE Systems, Inc. Civil No. 05-cv-303-JD, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 164 Eastern Electrical brought suit against the owner of property where it had provided electrical work as a subcontractor and the general contractor, FERD, seeking payment for its work. The property owner, BAE Systems, moved to dismiss the unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims against it. Because no irreparable injury exists when an injury is compensable in damages, the equitable remedies of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit were not available if an adequate legal remedy, such as the breach of contract claim against the general contractor is available. The court ruled that Eastern failed to allege that the breach of contract action would not provide an adequate remedy. In addition, the court ruled that because Eastern did not allege that BAE failed to pay FERD for the electrical work, it had not alleged that BAE received a benefit for which it had not paid. 8 pages. Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
|
|
Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store New Hampshire Bar Association |
