This case involves a commercial dispute between LaPine Technology Corp. and Kyocera Corp. arising from agreements to design, finance, manufacture, and license 3.5-inch disk drive products, which was resolved through arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce. LaPine petitioned the court to confirm the arbitration awards in its favor, while Kyocera sought to vacate, modify, or correct the awards on grounds including alleged procedural irregularities and undue means. The court granted confirmation of the awards and denied Kyocera's motion, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act limits judicial review of arbitration awards and that Kyocera had not established any statutory basis for vacatur. The court further noted that the parties' contractual provision for expanded judicial review could not enlarge the court's authority beyond the Act's constraints.
The case was a civil refund action in which plaintiff Michael Howard challenged an IRS assessment of a responsible person penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 for unpaid employment taxes of Seybold Group, Inc. The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the assessment was untimely. The core reasoning was that the three-year limitations period of 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) applies to § 6672 penalties and began to run when the employer's quarterly returns were filed in 1988; the IRS's first waiver form was ineffective because it was never signed by the agency, and the second waiver did not extend the period far enough to cover the 1992 assessment.
In this case, Hispanic residents of Monterey County sued under the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, challenging the county's supervisorial district plans as lacking required Section 5 preclearance and diluting minority voting strength. Plaintiffs sought to prevent the court from considering certain alternative redistricting plans submitted by intervenors and to have their own Avila plan installed temporarily. The court held that a legislature's endorsement of a litigant's redistricting plan creates a substantial question under Section 5 and ruled that a court should grant the legislature limited additional time to develop its own plan when it has not had adequate opportunity to address key factors.
This case involved a constitutional challenge by non-union county employees to the procedures used by their union and employer for calculating and collecting fair-share fees from nonmembers under collective bargaining agreements. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the union's notices, financial disclosures, inclusion of certain expenses as chargeable, and certified mail requirements failed to meet constitutional standards, while rejecting claims about uniform fee amounts. It awarded judgment on liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, referred damages to arbitration, and enjoined further fee collections until adequate procedures consistent with Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass’n, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and related precedents were implemented. The reasoning centered on the requirements for audited statements separating chargeable and nonchargeable expenses, opportunities to object with escrow of disputed amounts, and prompt arbitration to balance labor peace with First Amendment protections against compelled subsidization of non-germane activities.
This case involved a union representing INS employees challenging the agency's drug testing program, which included random testing for certain positions, reasonable suspicion testing, and post-accident or unsafe practice testing under its Drug Free Workplace plan. The court granted partial summary judgment to each side, permitting random testing for positions with a demonstrated nexus to public safety, national security, or drug interdiction (such as firefighters, nurses, and certain vehicle operators) while enjoining it for other listed roles like personnel specialists and financial handlers; it also enjoined reasonable suspicion testing for non-safety-sensitive positions and accident testing due to overly discretionary standards. The reasoning relied on Fourth Amendment precedents requiring a direct connection between job duties and the risk of harm or drug use to justify testing, drawing from similar cases involving other federal agencies, while balancing government interests against employee privacy expectations.
The case involved labor unions and individual Veterans Administration employees challenging the constitutionality of various urinalysis drug testing components in the VA's Drug Free Workplace Plan, adopted under Executive Order 12564, specifically targeting random testing, reasonable-suspicion testing, post-accident testing, and follow-up testing for positions alleged to be safety-sensitive. The district court granted partial summary judgment, permanently enjoining random testing for employees in certain lower-tier safety-sensitive categories (except automotive mechanics and motor vehicle operators), reasonable-suspicion testing for non-safety-sensitive positions, and post-accident testing as provided in the Plan, while upholding random testing for higher-tier safety-sensitive positions and follow-up testing. The rulings turned on whether the tested positions involved substantial safety risks justifying the intrusions on employee privacy, with the court dissolving prior preliminary injunctions only for the upheld categories. Defendants prevailed on claims under the Civil Service Reform Act.