In Seiss v. United States, the plaintiff brought tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall incident at a post office. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the complaint was untimely because it was filed more than six months after the agency mailed its notice of denial. The ruling interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) to require both timely administrative filing within two years of accrual and court filing within six months of denial, based on the statute's legislative history and consistent precedent from other circuits emphasizing that the limitations periods operate in the conjunctive.
In United States v. Manzo, brothers Louis Manzo (a losing candidate for mayor of Jersey City) and Ronald Manzo (his campaign manager) were charged with Hobbs Act conspiracy and attempted extortion, as well as interstate travel to promote bribery, based on meetings in which they allegedly agreed to accept cash payments from an FBI cooperating witness in exchange for future expedited development approvals and a personnel promotion if Louis won the election. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the extortion-related counts, holding that the Hobbs Act's prohibition on extortion "under color of official right" applies only to actual public officials and does not reach candidates who hold no public office at the time of the alleged conduct. The court denied the remaining motions seeking dismissal on grounds of outrageous government conduct and seeking additional discovery related to the grand jury and a witness recording.
The case concerned plaintiff Barry Hall's challenge to an early termination fee charged by defendant AT&T Mobility LLC after he canceled his wireless service and ported his number to another provider. Hall filed suit under California consumer protection statutes seeking to represent a class, prompting AT&T to move to compel arbitration under the service agreement's arbitration provision, which contained a class-action waiver and self-destruction clause. The court denied both the motion to compel arbitration and a related motion to strike a supporting declaration. It held that the class waiver was unconscionable under California law because the contract was adhesive, involved predictably small individual damages, and allegedly formed part of a scheme to extract small sums from many consumers. This finding triggered the self-destruction clause, voiding the arbitration agreement entirely, and the court rejected arguments that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted the unconscionability analysis.
The case concerned a law firm's appeal of a magistrate judge's order in a grand jury investigation of a marine vessel for potential violations of U.S. anti-dumping and environmental laws. The magistrate had appointed temporary individual conflict counsel for four crew members designated as material witnesses, all of whom were represented by the same firm, to assess possible conflicts of interest in the joint representation. The district court denied the appeals of both the appointment order and the denial of a stay, holding that the magistrate properly exercised discretion to inquire into conflicts in order to protect the witnesses without disqualifying counsel. The court found the decision supported by concerns underlying Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 44(c) and relevant case law on judicial inquiries into conflicts, even though the rule does not directly apply to grand jury witnesses.
The case involves federal criminal charges against defendant John J. Hamilton Jr. for conspiracy and attempted extortion under the Hobbs Act, bribery, making false statements to an FBI agent, and attempted witness tampering. Before his retrial, the government moved to exclude evidence that Hamilton had twice offered to take a polygraph examination during interviews with agents. The court ruled the 2002 offer admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 because it was relevant to his state of mind on the false-statements count and any prejudice could be cured by a limiting instruction, but excluded the 2005 offer as irrelevant.
Everett Laboratories sued Breckenridge Pharmaceutical for infringing claims of two patents covering compositions and methods for nutritional supplementation for pregnant or lactating women by selling a competing prenatal multivitamin product. Everett moved for a preliminary injunction to halt sales of the accused product pending resolution of the case. The court granted the motion, determining that Everett showed a likelihood of success on the merits because infringement was undisputed and Breckenridge's invalidity defenses lacked substantial merit, that Everett would suffer irreparable harm through price erosion and loss of market share, that the balance of hardships favored Everett, and that the public interest supported enforcement of patent rights.