This case involves an enforcement action by York Group, an American casket company, against Wuxi Taihu Tractor Company, a Chinese casket company, following a 2007 Texas state court judgment that enjoined Tractor from copying York's casket designs and selling them in the U.S. Tractor removed the enforcement suit to federal court and later petitioned the state court for a bill of review to challenge the judgment, which York also removed; Tractor sought remand while York moved to dismiss the petition. The court denied remand and granted summary judgment to York, dismissing the bill of review. It reasoned that removal converted the state judgment into one of the federal court, which has authority to review it; res judicata barred relitigation because Tractor had appeared in the original suit but failed to raise defenses; and Tractor could not show the judgment resulted from court error or York's fraud rather than its own deliberate inaction in not retaining counsel or defending the case.
The case involved the Office of Thrift Supervision's motion to renew a nearly 20-year-old judgment lien of about $4.2 million against David J. Felt, entered in 1990 and held in trust for private investors who had purchased stock from him. The court decided that the lien could not be renewed under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act because the judgment was not a qualifying "debt" as defined by the statute. The core reasoning was that the obligation was owed to the individual investors rather than the United States and arose from a contract between Felt and those investors to which the government was not a party, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 3002(3)(B).
This ERISA case involved former employee Kenneth Kujanek's claims against his ex-employer Houston Poly Bag and plan administrator Pension Benefit Administrators for wrongful denial of a 2007 profit-sharing contribution, breach of fiduciary duty by delaying access to his vested benefits for 18 months after resignation (resulting in over $180,000 in losses), and failure to timely provide plan documents upon written request. The court granted summary judgment to Kujanek on the fiduciary breach and document disclosure claims against Houston Poly Bag, awarding monetary relief, statutory penalties, costs, and attorney fees, while dismissing the contribution claim with prejudice. The core reasoning was that the plan entitled Kujanek to a rollover distribution as soon as administratively feasible after the plan year-end, but the employer's one-year waiting rule and delays violated ERISA fiduciary duties; documents were not furnished promptly despite requests, triggering penalties under ERISA section 502(c).
This case involves a Medicare-certified hospice provider challenging repayment demands from HHS for exceeding annual payment caps in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, calculated under a regulation the provider claims contradicts the Medicare Act. The court denied the 2006 claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to untimely filing with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board. For the 2007 claim, the court held that 42 C.F.R. § 418.309(b)(1) is invalid because it conflicts with the statutory formula in 42 U.S.C. § 1395f(i)(2), set aside the repayment demand, remanded the matter to HHS for recalculation under the statute, and permanently enjoined future enforcement of the regulation against the provider.
The case concerned whether Canal Indemnity Company was obligated under its surplus liability policy, including attached MCS-90 and Form F endorsements, to defend or indemnify Williams Logging & Tree Services, Inc. and its owner for damages from a pickup truck accident that injured a motorcyclist. The pickup, titled to the owner doing business as the company, was not listed on the policy and was used to transport the owner and fuel/tools for work sites. The court granted summary judgment to Canal, ruling it had no duty to defend or indemnify because the vehicle did not qualify as a commercial motor carrier under federal or Texas statutes and regulations. The pickup weighed less than 10,000 pounds, did not transport cargo or hazardous materials for compensation, and thus fell outside the scope of the required endorsements for motor carriers.
In this case, petitioner Jerry Hartfield challenged his decades-long state confinement following the 1980 reversal of his capital murder conviction by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which had ordered a new trial that never occurred; the state instead obtained a purported commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment. Hartfield filed a federal habeas petition asserting speedy trial and due process violations. The magistrate judge recommended denying the state's motion for summary judgment, which had sought dismissal under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations. The court reasoned that because no valid state court judgment of conviction existed, the petition was properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 rather than AEDPA and thus not subject to its time limits, and that the case should be transferred to the Eastern District of Texas for proper venue.