The case is a wrongful death action brought by Diana Rause, mother of decedent Johnny Mendoza, Jr., against paper mill owner Abitibi and general contractor Paperchine after Mendoza, an employee of subcontractor Enerquin, fell more than 37 feet while removing ceiling panels and died. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment arguing that defendants owed non-delegable duties and retained sufficient control over safety to face liability; defendants filed cross-motions on premises liability and retained control. The court analyzed Arizona law under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414, clarifying that retained-control liability is direct rather than vicarious, that merely providing safety manuals or qualifying a subcontractor does not necessarily establish the required control over the manner of work performance, and that day-to-day supervisory control is not required for liability to attach.
The case concerns an ERISA-governed long-term disability plan sponsored by Giant Industries for its employees, including plaintiff Richard Horton, who was approved for benefits after becoming disabled in 2002. Horton challenged Prudential's calculation of his monthly benefit amount, which used only his base hourly wage and excluded overtime and bonus pay from pre-disability earnings, resulting in a lower benefit and an offset after he received retroactive Social Security benefits. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on cross-motions, ruling that the plan documents, including the Booklet-Certificate, unambiguously defined earnings to exclude overtime and bonuses, that Prudential had discretionary authority to interpret the plan, and that no material conflict existed with any summary plan description or enrollment materials. The decision rested on the plain language of the governing policy documents and ERISA standards for plan interpretation.
In Gonzales v. Schriro, a death-sentenced Arizona inmate filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and later moved for a competency determination and stay of proceedings, asserting that he had become unable to rationally communicate with or assist his counsel due to mental illness. The district court denied the motion after considering conflicting expert psychiatric reports—one concluding the petitioner was competent, understood his situation, and was possibly feigning symptoms, and the other diagnosing schizophrenia and finding him incompetent—as well as an extended observation period at a state hospital. The court determined that the petitioner possessed the capacity to understand his legal position and communicate in a comprehensible manner, rendering a stay under Rohan ex rel. Gates v. Woodford unwarranted.
This case involves three male pilots who sued their employer, Executive Jet Management, alleging they were discriminatorily terminated based on gender, race, and national origin in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 after a female flight attendant accused them of sexual harassment; the employer maintained the firings were for inappropriate conduct following an internal investigation. The court first denied the plaintiffs' motion to deem two statements of fact as disputed rather than admitted, ruling that an affidavit from counsel about her own intentions did not create a material factual dispute regarding the underlying deposition testimony. In evaluating the defendant's summary judgment motion, the court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, examined whether the plaintiffs had identified similarly situated female comparators, corrected an inaccurate citation to Ninth Circuit authority, and noted that credibility determinations are reserved for the jury while emphasizing that the ultimate burden of proving intentional discrimination remains with the plaintiffs.
The case involves plaintiffs suing defendants for patent and trademark infringement over digital scales, with plaintiffs alleging that defendants' products copied their patented designs and used a confusingly similar trademark. Defendants requested a stay of the proceedings while the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reexamined one of the patents at issue. The court denied the motion to stay, applying a three-factor test that weighs prejudice to the nonmoving party, simplification of issues, and the stage of litigation. It found that an indefinite stay would likely harm plaintiffs by delaying discovery and permitting continued alleged infringement, while offering no benefit to the separate trademark claim.
This case is a subrogation action in which State Farm sought to recover from Broan-NuTone for insurance payments made after a residential fire allegedly caused by one of the defendant's exhaust fans. The defendant moved for sanctions, arguing that State Farm had allowed the fire scene to be repaired and altered before notifying it of the claim or giving it a chance to inspect. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. It reasoned that State Farm, as a sophisticated litigant, had notice of the fan's potential involvement and thus a duty under Arizona law to preserve the scene, that the spoliation was willful, and that no lesser sanction such as an adverse inference or exclusion of evidence could adequately cure the resulting prejudice to the defendant's ability to investigate alternative causes.
