Current Legal News

Case Summaries

Admiralty

[08/06] Southwest Marine, Inc. v. US
Fees incurred by plaintiff-shipyard operator during its unsuccessful defense of a private party Clean Water Act lawsuit are not allowable costs under Subpart 31.2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. sections 31.201-31.205.

[08/04] Aguilera v. Alaska Juris F/V
In the context of general maritime law and injured seamen, the circuit court rules that maintenance and cure payments are subject to withholding for child support obligations, so long as those payments constitute income under relevant state law.

[07/25] Bd. of Comm'rs of the Orleans Levee Dist. v. M/V Belle of Orleans
In an admiralty action seeking to enforce a maritime lien raising contract and tort claims involving a paddlewheeler vessel that broke loose from its moorings during Hurricane Katrina, dismissal for lack of admiralty jurisdiction and denial of defendant's Rule 59(e) motion to alter, amend, or vacate are affirmed and reversed in part where: 1) the paddlewheeler was a "vessel" for purposes of establishing admiralty jurisdiction; 2) the district court improperly determined that it lacked admiralty jurisdiction over a tort claim; 3) the district court improperly refused to issue a writ of attachment under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules; and 4) a contract claim was properly dismissed for lack of admiralty jurisdiction because the lease at issue, while partially maritime in nature, was not a maritime contract for purposes of creating a maritime lien.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[08/19] Joyce v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
In a suit by shareholders of a telecommunications company alleging that defendant, while advising the company during its acquisition by another company, failed to advise plaintiffs on minimizing their exposure to financial losses, grant of a motion to dismiss is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) plaintiffs were bringing a direct action on their own behalf, not a derivative one on behalf of the corporation, and to that extent had standing; but 2) plaintiffs' constructive fraud claim required them to allege that defendant owed them a fiduciary duty, but no such duty never arose.

[08/19] King v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co.
In a malicious prosecution suit alleging that defendant fired plaintiff without probable cause to believe that she had stolen train tickets, denial of plaintiff's discovery motion and summary judgment for defendants are affirmed where: 1) a determination by the System Board of Adjustment that plaintiff had stolen from defendant did not preclude litigation of that question in the context of the malicious prosecution suit; but 2) plaintiff failed to produce evidence of the date on which defendant had filed a criminal complaint against her, and thus would not be able to prove her claim that defendant lacked probable cause at the time of the filing.

[08/19] US v. Flaherty
In an action brought under the False Claims Act alleging that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided a reimbursement check to defendant as a result of a fraudulent scheme, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where qui tam actions cannot be brought pro se.

Read More