The case involved reporter Brian Karem, who was held in civil contempt by a state court for refusing to produce notes identifying confidential sources who helped arrange his jailhouse interview with a capital murder suspect; Karem sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to vacate the contempt order. The district court denied the petition, adopting the magistrate's recommendation. Relying on Branzburg v. Hayes, the court held that the First Amendment does not create a reporter's privilege allowing refusal to disclose relevant confidential information in a good-faith criminal investigation or proceeding, and rejected the need for case-by-case balancing or special showings of necessity before requiring testimony or production. The court found the subpoenaed information relevant to issues of admissibility, culpability, and fair trial rights in the underlying murder prosecution, with no evidence of bad-faith harassment.
This case involved the FDIC, acting in its corporate capacity after taking over an insolvent bank, suing Joseph Amberson to recover on a consolidated promissory note and a guaranty agreement that Amberson had executed with the failed bank. Amberson admitted executing the instruments and defaulting on the note but raised defenses to the guaranty, including estoppel and failure of consideration, based on an alleged side agreement that the bank would obtain additional security which it did not. The court granted the FDIC's motion for summary judgment, holding that 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) barred Amberson's defenses because any such agreement was not properly documented in the bank's records and thus could not diminish the FDIC's interest in the acquired assets; the court further noted the absence of evidence that the FDIC had knowledge of any fraud defense at the time of acquisition.
This case involved the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers suing one of its local lodges (D474) and its officers to enforce a trusteeship imposed under the union constitution after the local began efforts to disaffiliate and formed a new organization, including transferring local funds. The union sought a preliminary injunction to obtain possession of the local's funds, properties, and assets, which the defendants refused to relinquish. Following an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate recommended granting the injunction, and after de novo review, the district court agreed and ordered the defendants to turn over the assets while restraining interference with the trusteeship. The court reasoned that the trusteeship complied with the union's constitution and federal law under 29 U.S.C. § 462, as it addressed an emergency involving threatened secession and dissipation of assets, satisfied procedural requirements including a fair hearing, and met the standards for a preliminary injunction by showing likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
In this case, plaintiffs Interchange Office Park, Ltd. and Texan Homes, Inc. sued defendants Standard Industries, Inc. and Gerald Dubinski under CERCLA to recover approximately $2,000,000 in costs incurred to clean up lead contamination on land purchased from defendants for development. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that a private CERCLA action requires the site to be listed on the EPA's National Priorities List, an approved government response plan, specific allegations of release causing costs, and a proper demand letter. The court denied the motions, reasoning that CERCLA section 9607(a) creates a private right of action for response costs consistent with the National Contingency Plan, that NPL listing is not required for private removal actions, and that notice requirements under section 9612 apply only to claims against the Superfund, not purely private suits.
In Rose v. Intelogic Trace, Inc., former employees sued their employer in Texas state court alleging they were terminated to prevent the vesting of retirement, vacation, and other benefits. The employer removed the case to federal district court under ERISA, which the plaintiffs sought to remand arguing that their state petition raised no federal question. The court denied the motion to remand, ruling that the original complaint necessarily presented a federal claim under ERISA Section 510 because it alleged terminations motivated by an intent to interfere with protected benefits. The court explained that jurisdiction is determined from the complaint at the time of removal and that artful amendments or pleading cannot defeat federal jurisdiction over such preempted claims.
This case involved a dispute over a patent license agreement for surgical cataract removal equipment, where plaintiff United Sonics sought a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and non-infringement, along with a declaration that the agreement was void. The action originated in the Eastern District of New York but was transferred to the Western District of Texas based on a forum selection clause in the agreement. Defendant Shock then moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Arkansas, where he now resides, while plaintiff alternatively sought return to New York. The court granted transfer to the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), reasoning that Texas had only a tenuous connection to the dispute after the defendant's relocation, the balance of convenience for witnesses, records, and parties strongly favored New York, and the plaintiff's original choice of forum should not be disturbed absent strong countervailing factors.
