This case involves a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant credit management company willfully failed to reasonably investigate his complaints about inaccurate credit information. After a jury trial, the plaintiff prevailed and was awarded damages, including punitive damages. The defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and remittitur of the punitive damages, arguing insufficient evidence of willfulness, causation of injury, and reasonableness of procedures. The court denied all motions, holding that the Seventh Amendment bars reexamination of the jury's factual findings and that the verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence, as credibility determinations and inferences were properly within the jury's province.
The case involved a plaintiff seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying disability insurance benefits for conditions including diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, depression, back pain, and arthritis. The court reversed the ALJ's determination that the plaintiff was not disabled and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The core reasoning was that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, as it improperly discounted opinions from treating physicians while relying on assessments from non-medical disability examiners and included unfounded speculation about physicians' motives.
This case involved a civil forfeiture action by the United States against real property and bank accounts owned or leased by Alex Latifi and Axion Corporation, based on allegations that Axion violated federal statutes including the Arms Export Control Act and laws against fraud involving aircraft parts in fulfilling a defense contract. After the claimants prevailed, the court had previously awarded attorneys' fees under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, and the present order determines the specific amount recoverable. The court decided that the claimants are entitled to $363,259.92 plus interest, which covers reasonable fees incurred in both the civil forfeiture proceeding and the related criminal case after adjusting for excessive, duplicative, or insufficiently documented hours and rates. The reasoning focused on applying lodestar calculations, excluding certain overhead or unverified expenses, and recognizing that CAFRA permits recovery of fees from the parallel criminal matter when they were intertwined with defending the forfeiture.
The case concerns a citizen suit brought by Black Warrior Riverkeeper under the Clean Water Act against the Birmingham Airport Authority and Dunn Construction Company, alleging ongoing permit violations and pollutant discharges into Village Creek from an airport runway extension project. After the Alabama Department of Environmental Management entered consent orders with the defendants following administrative proceedings in which the plaintiff had participated, the defendants moved to dismiss, contending the suit was barred by the state's enforcement actions and doctrines such as primary jurisdiction. The court converted the motions to summary judgment and denied them, finding that the action falls within the statutory exception of 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g)(6)(B)(ii) because the plaintiff's 60-day notice preceded the state proceedings and the suit was timely filed, and that allegations of continuing violations not resolved by the consent orders present genuine issues of material fact precluding dismissal.
This case was a civil forfeiture proceeding brought by the government against certain real property owned by Axion Corporation and the Latifis after their acquittal in a related criminal prosecution. The government moved to dismiss the action without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), while the claimants sought dismissal with prejudice to qualify for attorneys' fees and costs under CAFRA. The court granted dismissal with prejudice, finding that the government had no intention of pursuing the matter further and that the acquittal plus the dismissal order created a judicially sanctioned change in the parties' legal relationship. It further held that this outcome made the claimants substantially prevailing parties under CAFRA, entitling them to recover reasonable fees, costs, and interest, consistent with the statute's purpose of allowing innocent owners to recover after wrongful seizures.
The case concerned a breach of contract dispute in which Barber Auto Sales alleged that UPS manipulated its audit procedures under their shipping agreements to improperly increase charges based on false package dimensions. UPS moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Barber's claims for equitable relief were preempted by the FAAAA and that many of its contract claims were barred by the contractual 180-day notice requirement and other time limits. The court granted the motion in relevant part, dismissing the equitable claims due to federal preemption of state-law provisions related to carrier prices and services, dismissing untimely claims that failed to satisfy the notice and filing deadlines in the UPS Customer Agreement, and allowing only timely breach claims to proceed. The core reasoning relied on the broad preemptive scope of the FAAAA as interpreted by Supreme Court precedent and the plain terms of the parties' contracts enforcing notice as a condition precedent.