This case concerns the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel, who served notices to terminate prior copyright grants under the 1976 Copyright Act for thousands of Superman works. The termination notices omitted required identifying details (title, author, copyright date, and registration number) for the first two weeks of Superman newspaper strips from January 1939. The court held that this omission constituted harmless error under Copyright Office regulations and did not invalidate the notices' application to those strips. The decision was based on the extensive cataloging of other works in the notices, the minuscule proportion of omitted material, the presence of a catch-all clause, and the overall context of the iconic, long-exploited property. The court denied both parties' motions for reconsideration of its prior ruling on this issue.
This case concerned the tax treatment of restricted stock received by former Ernst & Young consulting partner John Nackel in the 2000 sale of the firm's consulting practice to Cap Gemini, S.A. Nackel initially reported the stock's value as 2000 income on his original return but later filed an amended return excluding it to claim a refund, prompting the United States to sue under 26 U.S.C. § 7405 to recover the refund as erroneous. The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the transaction documents allocated the income to 2000 and that the stock's restrictions did not defer taxation. The decision followed the reasoning in similar cases, such as United States v. Fletcher, that the deal's provisions fixed the tax consequences in the year of receipt.
The case involved plaintiff Veronica Pearson, a former Northwest Airlines ramp worker and union member, who sued the airline's long-term disability plan, its administrator, and related parties under ERISA after her 2007 claim for benefits—stemming from 2004 workplace injuries—was denied as untimely. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, holding that the disability plan was created under a collective bargaining agreement, making the dispute a minor one under the Railway Labor Act that must be resolved through mandatory arbitration rather than in federal court. The opinion reasoned that ERISA claims arising from CBA-governed benefits plans are displaced by the RLA's framework for airline and railroad labor disputes, with no exception for procedural challenges to the denial.
The case concerned a wrongful death claim brought by the family of passenger Ramazan Aziz, who suffered cardiac arrest on an Air India international flight from Frankfurt to Los Angeles; the plaintiffs alleged that the airline's failure to equip the aircraft with an automated external defibrillator (AED) caused his death. The court granted the airline's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' partial motion, holding that the Montreal Convention exclusively governs the claim and preempts state tort law. Under the Convention, the absence of an AED on the flight did not constitute an "accident" creating liability, as no applicable regulation or treaty required such equipment at the time and the airline followed its established medical emergency procedures. The decision rested on binding precedent interpreting the Convention and federal aviation rules, while noting a factual dispute on causation that was not reached due to the lack of liability.
This case involved a claim by Janice Parker against the Vulcan Materials Company Long Term Disability Plan under ERISA for long-term disability benefits that were terminated starting July 1, 2006. The plaintiff argued she was totally disabled due to conditions including anxiety, depression, Lyme disease, and related infections, seeking benefits beyond the policy's mental disorder exclusion period. After a bench trial, the court decided that the plan administrator, Hartford, did not abuse its discretion in denying the claim. The reasoning was that even accounting for a conflict of interest, the evidence did not establish that the plaintiff's physical conditions prevented her from performing her occupational duties as required by the policy.
The case concerned a wheelchair user who visited a Leslie's Poolmart store and encountered a non-compliant handicap parking space that blocked the accessible ramp, violating ADA Accessibility Guidelines; she was awarded the $1,000 statutory minimum penalty under California's Disabled Persons Act after the court granted partial summary judgment on her state-law claim (her federal ADA claim having become moot due to the defendant's subsequent remediation). Plaintiff then moved for attorneys' fees under Cal. Civil Code § 54.3. The court granted the motion, awarding $39,057.83 after reducing the requested amount by $1,111.17 for unrelated work, applying state law to determine both the right to fees and their reasonableness based on the prevailing community rate and the meritorious nature of the access claim.
