James Levin Latchum

In Ward v. Shalala, Ms. Joan Ward appealed the denial of her application for Social Security disability benefits, claiming onset of disability in 1987 due to cardiac problems before her insured status expired in 1990. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), examining whether it was supported by substantial evidence from medical records and testimony showing she could perform sedentary or light work. The court held that the ALJ's finding of no disability was supported by substantial evidence and rejected additional claims of bias and constitutional violations as waived or meritless. It therefore granted summary judgment to the Secretary and denied Ward's motion.

federal powerhealthcare

This case involved plaintiff Alfred DiSabatino's claims that his former employers, the DiSabatino family construction companies, and their comptroller violated COBRA's notice requirements under ERISA after his 1993 termination by failing to provide timely and properly delivered information about his rights to continue health insurance coverage. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the initial May 1994 notice was substantively inadequate and the subsequent August 1994 notice was both untimely and not individually addressed to the plaintiff and his spouse, in violation of federal law. It partially granted the defendants' summary judgment motion by rejecting claims for extracontractual or punitive damages due to lack of demonstrated injury from the notice failures, but awarded the plaintiff a statutory penalty for the violations and his reasonable attorneys' fees based on the defendants' lack of justification and the need for deterrence. The core reasoning centered on the plain requirements of COBRA for continuation coverage notices following qualifying events like termination and the application of ERISA's fee-shifting factors.

labor & employmenthealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from injuries William Windley sustained in 1992 while machining an air preheater at a Delaware power plant, when the rotor unexpectedly rotated and crushed him; he and his wife sued the preheater's designer and manufacturer, ABB Air Preheater, along with other parties, alleging a dangerously defective design that lacked safe access for maintenance. ABB moved for summary judgment under Delaware's Builders' Statute (10 Del.C. § 8127), a six-year statute of repose for claims involving construction of improvements to real property. The court granted the motion, holding that ABB had furnished construction of the preheater, that the 69,900-pound unit qualified as an improvement to the power plant because it was a permanent addition enhancing the property's utility, and that the repose period had begun upon substantial completion in 1961 and thus expired long before the suit. The decision rested on undisputed facts that ABB manufactured the unit and on the statutory definition of construction and improvement, with no need for further discovery because the Windleys filed no Rule 56(f) affidavits.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case concerned a dispute between Albert H. Marta and Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York over Marta's obligation to pay contingent interest under a note and mortgage he assumed in 1972 for an apartment complex, calculated as 20% of annual gross revenue exceeding $100,000. Marta stopped making payments after 1977 and sought a declaratory judgment that none were owed, claiming an oral waiver or modification by MONY, while MONY counterclaimed for the unpaid amounts plus fees. The court granted MONY partial summary judgment, ruling that the statute of frauds barred any oral modification of the written loan documents, that no-waiver clauses prevented waiver by inaction or conduct, and that laches did not apply absent proof of an intervening prejudicial change in conditions. The decision left issues of prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees for further briefing.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Kondrath v. Arum, plaintiffs Dave Tiberi, a professional boxer, and his manager Mark Kondrath sued boxing promoter Bob Arum, Top Rank, the IBF, and various officials, judges, and others, alleging they formed a RICO enterprise that fixed IBF title fights, including the 1992 Toney-Tiberi bout in Atlantic City, along with related claims under the New Jersey racketeering statute, fiduciary duty violations, fraud, and breach of contract. The defendants moved to dismiss or transfer the case from the District of Delaware. The court granted the motion to transfer venue to the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), finding that the convenience of parties and witnesses, the location of key events and evidence in New Jersey, and the interests of justice all favored transfer, while dismissing the remaining motions as moot.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Matlack, Inc. filing a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to obtain documents linking the company to a landfill site in Ohio, after the EPA had requested information from Matlack and named it a potentially responsible party under environmental law. The EPA released the requested documents with some redactions following the initiation of the suit, leading Matlack to seek an award of attorney's fees and costs. The court applied a two-part test to determine eligibility and entitlement for fees, first assessing whether Matlack had substantially prevailed by showing the lawsuit was necessary and caused the disclosure, and then evaluating factors such as public benefit, commercial interest, and the reasonableness of the government's withholding.

environmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns whether a federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over Title VII sexual harassment claims brought by three employees of an employment agency against their employer and its owner. The plaintiffs argued jurisdiction existed because the defendants qualified as an "employer" by counting over a thousand temporary workers toward the statutory fifteen-employee minimum, or alternatively because they operated as an "employment agency" subject to Title VII without any employee threshold. The defendants moved to dismiss, contending that temporary workers did not qualify as their employees under Title VII and that employment agencies were not covered for the asserted claims. Applying Supreme Court precedent from Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden, the court used common-law agency principles focusing on the right to control the manner and means of work, along with factors such as skill required, tools, duration, and assignment of projects, to conclude that the temporary workers were independent contractors rather than employees.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this diversity jurisdiction case, plaintiffs Hionis International Enterprises, Inc. and A-Hionis, Ltd. sued defendant Tandy Corporation for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation arising from 1991 distribution and license agreements allowing Hionis to open Radio Shack stores in Greece. Tandy moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and the court granted the motion after determining there were no genuine issues of material fact. The agreements contained no obligation for Tandy to prevent or stop unauthorized sales of its products by third parties such as competitor Sakiotis S.A., which had dealt with Tandy's former corporate affiliate InterTAN rather than Tandy itself; the parol evidence rule barred extrinsic evidence offered to imply such a duty or exclusivity guarantee; and the tort claims failed for lack of any actionable misrepresentation or duty. The court applied Texas law to the contract interpretation pursuant to the agreements' choice-of-law provisions.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a breach of contract claim by China Resource Products against Fayda International for unpaid aluminum rods, later expanded to include claims against Fayda's principals and CPM Industries for fraudulent conveyance of assets, civil conspiracy, and breach of a separate titanium dioxide contract. After a jury trial on the added claims, the jury found CPM and one principal liable for fraudulent conveyance in the amount of $374,564 plus interest, found no civil conspiracy, and awarded China Resource $30,000 plus interest on the titanium contract while rejecting CPM's counterclaim. The court denied CPM's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on the fraudulent conveyance verdict. In reviewing the motion, the court applied the standard of viewing all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict winner and concluded that the record contained sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find fraudulent intent and an adequate value for the transferred assets.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Steven R. Alten suing his former accountants, Ellin & Tucker and Joel Kaye, for breach of contract, malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty after the IRS imposed over $140,000 in tax penalties on him personally under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 for failing to pay federal employee withholding taxes for his company. Alten alleged that the defendants' failure to properly handle and ensure payment of the taxes directly caused the penalties. The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the action was essentially one for indemnification, which public policy and case law prohibit for a party who willfully failed to pay the taxes.

taxestorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerns UPS's challenge to the U.S. Postal Service's International Customized Mail (ICM) service, which permits negotiated rates for large-volume international mailers meeting certain thresholds, on grounds that it violates the Postal Reorganization Act's requirements for uniform rates (39 U.S.C. § 101(d)), non-discrimination among users (§ 403(b)-(c)), and presidential consent for international rate-setting (§ 407(a)). UPS sought a permanent injunction against the ICM program, while the Postal Service moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim, and a trade association sought permissive intervention. The court consolidated the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, noting the absence of factual disputes, and analyzed whether UPS satisfied Article III and prudential standing requirements before turning to statutory interpretation of the PRA provisions.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case was a Miller Act suit brought by subcontractor Endicott Enterprises against prime contractor Star Brite and its surety to recover unpaid amounts for mechanical work performed on three airplane hangars at Dover Air Force Base under a federal government contract. The court held that Star Brite breached the subcontract by failing to make timely and adequate progress payments, that Enco was justified in stopping work, and that Enco was entitled to damages for the value of work completed plus lost profits while Star Brite's counterclaim was denied. The decision rested on findings that Enco's witness was more credible, that payments received fell short of the government-approved work performed, and that the subcontract allowed termination after sixty days of nonpayment.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In United States v. Murcer, the defendant was indicted on charges of possessing cocaine and crack cocaine with intent to distribute, carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) to suppress evidence and statements obtained during the execution of a search warrant at his apartment, contending that officers violated the knock-and-announce statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3109, and the Fourth Amendment by ramming the door shortly after knocking and announcing their presence. The court set forth detailed findings of fact concerning the investigation, which relied on confidential informants, a controlled drug purchase at the apartment, resident complaints, and the officers' training and experience indicating risks of evidence destruction or danger to officers, leading the court to analyze whether exigent circumstances permitted the manner of entry.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case involved a negligence claim by Helen and William Shinners against K-Mart Corporation for injuries Mrs. Shinners sustained when she slipped and fell on a white spot in a Delaware K-Mart store in 1991. The plaintiffs alleged that K-Mart failed to maintain safe premises for business invitees. The court granted K-Mart's motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs produced no admissible evidence showing K-Mart knew or should have known of the hazard, as an unidentified man's statement was inadmissible hearsay and no facts established the spot's duration or composition. Without proof of actual or constructive knowledge, an essential element of the Delaware premises liability claim was missing.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a deckhand who sued his employer for injuries allegedly sustained on three occasions while working on launch boats, asserting claims under the Jones Act for negligence, for unseaworthiness of the vessel, and for maintenance and cure. After a jury trial, the jury found for the defendant on the negligence and unseaworthiness claims but awarded the plaintiff maintenance at $15 per day through 1996, $25,000 in cure for medical expenses, and $300,000 in compensatory damages for aggravation of injuries due to the defendant's unreasonable failure to pay. The defendant renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law or alternatively for a new trial or remittitur. The court recited the standards governing post-verdict judgment as a matter of law, requiring the evidence to be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner without weighing credibility, and explained that maintenance and cure are owed until the seaman reaches maximum medical cure.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by the New Zealand Kiwifruit Marketing Board against the City of Wilmington for damage to a kiwifruit shipment stored in the city's port facilities, along with crossclaims by other defendants (refrigeration service providers) against the City for contribution and indemnification. The court had previously dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the City based on a one-year statute of limitations in the port tariff. On the City's motion for summary judgment regarding the crossclaims, the court denied it as to the contribution claims, finding they were not barred by the Delaware County and Municipal Tort Claims Act due to the public building exception. However, the court granted summary judgment on the indemnification claims, determining that neither the tort-based nor quasi-contractual theories applied to the facts of the case.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves a federal indictment against Edward McCoy and a co-defendant on charges of providing false information in firearm purchases and conspiring to transport firearms interstate without a license. McCoy moved to suppress a handgun and his incriminating statements, which had been obtained by Yonkers police and previously suppressed by a New York state court under state law. The federal court held that the state suppression ruling has no estoppel effect on the United States due to principles of dual sovereignty, requiring an independent inquiry into whether the police conduct violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights under federal standards. The court proceeded to make its own findings of fact regarding the traffic stop, investigation of vehicle ownership, and flashlight observation of a bag in the car, applying federal Fourth Amendment precedents such as Terry v. Ohio rather than New York law.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rightsfederal power

This case was a wrongful death action brought by the family of Herbert R. Garrison, Sr., an electrical specialist killed when the arms of an energized Mollers PFS palletizer descended on him while he was troubleshooting a slip sheet mechanism at his employer's plant. A jury awarded the plaintiffs $937,500 in compensatory damages, finding the defendants 75% negligent and the decedent 25% comparatively negligent, resulting in a judgment of $703,125. The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 for judgment as a matter of law or alternatively for a new trial or remittitur, arguing insufficient evidence supported the verdict. The court explained that such a motion presents a federal procedural question even in a diversity case, requiring the court to view all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and to grant relief only if no reasonable jury could have found for the plaintiffs. It further noted Delaware's comparative negligence statute, under which recovery is not barred if the plaintiff's negligence is 50% or less.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a personal injury lawsuit brought by California residents against a Delaware corporation for injuries allegedly sustained by the wife in a shower at the defendant's hotel in Copenhagen, Denmark, with the husband also claiming loss of consortium; jurisdiction was based on diversity and venue was in Delaware federal court. The defendant moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds after limited discovery and a delay in prosecution. The court decided to grant the motion and dismiss the action, reasoning that Denmark was an adequate alternative forum where the defendant was amenable to process, Danish law governed under Delaware's choice-of-law rules because the injury and conduct occurred there, and both the private interests of the parties and public interests weighed in favor of the foreign forum over Delaware.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a creditor appealing the bankruptcy court's denial of its motion to dismiss a debtor's Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, where the creditor alleged the debtor was concealing assets to defraud creditors. The district court addressed whether the bankruptcy court was required under Bankruptcy Rule 7052 to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying the motion to dismiss. The court determined that such findings were not required because the motion fell within an exception to the rule for certain proceedings, and the oral ruling from the bench provided sufficient explanation for appellate review. Accordingly, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of the motion.

procedure