Stephen M. McNamee

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.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employment

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved claims by Ranch Realty, Inc. against DC Ranch Realty, LLC for breach of contract, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under state and federal law, alleging unauthorized use of the plaintiff's marks in violation of a 1997 settlement agreement. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that the statute of limitations and laches barred the claims due to the plaintiff's constructive notice from years of open use. The court excluded extraneous materials submitted by the plaintiff and declined to convert the motion to one for summary judgment. It denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint's allegations raised plausible grounds that the claims had not accrued until May 2004 and thus were timely, with the factual question of accrual inappropriate for resolution on the pleadings alone.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned the Wal-Mart Associates' Health and Welfare Plan's effort to recover $64,386.58 in medical benefits it paid for Defendant Salazar's injuries from a 2005 automobile accident, after she settled her tort claim for $250,000. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with the Plan arguing it was entitled to reimbursement under its terms and Defendants contending the controlling plan documents lacked any reimbursement or subrogation clause, that ERISA did not authorize the requested relief, and that equitable doctrines such as the made-whole rule barred recovery. The court held that the plan documents, including the summary plan description, contained an enforceable reimbursement provision that created an equitable lien on the settlement proceeds, making most of the Plan's payments subject to recovery under ERISA.

labor & employmenthealthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a petition for a writ of error coram nobis filed by Njai to vacate his prior conviction, claiming that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly advise him on the immigration consequences of his guilty plea to charges involving false statements on an I-9 form. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in full and denied the petition with prejudice. The court reasoned that Njai failed to demonstrate valid reasons for not challenging the conviction earlier via a section 2255 motion and did not establish fundamental error, noting that he had been informed multiple times during the plea hearing that deportation was probable yet chose to proceed. The court also rejected objections regarding stare decisis and the petitioner's family ties as lacking merit.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

This case arose from an insurance dispute after a water pipe broke at Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church's education center in 2003, leading to claims under a first-party property policy issued by Church Mutual. The church sued for breach of contract, bad faith, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair claim settlement practices, seeking punitive damages among other relief. The court granted the insurer's motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing the punitive damages request. Under Arizona law, punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with an "evil mind," shown by intent to injure, spite, or conscious disregard of a substantial risk of harm; the evidence here showed only a bona fide dispute over claim amounts without meeting that standard, and certain expert opinions offered by the plaintiff were inadmissible.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case was a patent infringement action in which plaintiff Medicis alleged that defendants Upsher-Smith and Prasco were selling competing skin-treatment products that infringed its U.S. Patent No. 6,905,675. After the court denied Medicis's motion for a preliminary injunction, Medicis requested reexamination of the patent by the PTO based on prior-art references raised by the defendants. The court granted Medicis's motion to stay the litigation pending completion of the reexamination, citing the inherent authority of courts to issue such stays and the liberal policy favoring them when reexamination may clarify or narrow the issues in suit; the court imposed limited conditions on the stay but rejected most additional conditions requested by the defendants.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a challenge to deportation proceedings where petitioner Dung Van Chau claims derivative United States citizenship through his unknown father, allegedly a U.S. serviceman in Vietnam. The court, conducting a de novo review after transfer from the Ninth Circuit, considered whether Chau met the requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act for derivative citizenship based on his father's status and residency. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence that Chau's father was a U.S. citizen who satisfied the physical presence requirements. It concluded that Chau is not a U.S. citizen and returned the matter to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings.

immigrationcriminal law

The case involved a former Bank of America employee who sued after his stock options under a Key Employee Stock Plan expired following a reduction-in-force termination, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation based on claims that he qualified for retirement treatment allowing the options to remain exercisable until 2010. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's motion on the substantive claims while denying its declaratory judgment counterclaim as moot. The core reasoning was that the plan documents unambiguously defined retirement for option purposes under the Rule of 75, which the plaintiff did not meet, classifying his termination instead as an "all other terminations" subject to a 90-day exercise period, with no ambiguity or misleading information from the employer.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Bonilla v. Principal Financial Group, plaintiffs Patricia and David Bonilla sued defendant Principal Life Insurance Company after it denied coverage for Mrs. Bonilla's pacemaker implant surgery under an ERISA-governed group health plan provided through Mr. Bonilla's employer. The case centered on whether the atrial fibrillation condition, for which Mrs. Bonilla had received ongoing treatment including medication and physician visits before her June 1998 coverage start date, qualified as a preexisting condition subject to the plan's exclusion period. Principal moved for summary judgment, arguing that the surgery fell within the preexisting condition restriction and that any pre-authorization calls did not create a binding commitment to pay. The court granted the motion, holding that the condition met the preexisting criteria based on treatment records within the applicable six-month lookback period and that the plan's explicit disclaimers in pre-certification calls prevented any viable estoppel or fiduciary breach claim.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved taxpayers who exchanged water rights associated with their Arizona farmland for an interest in other farm property and did not report any gain on the transaction, claiming it qualified for nonrecognition treatment as a like-kind exchange under 26 U.S.C. § 1031. The IRS assessed taxes on the transaction for the 1993 tax year, and the taxpayers sued for a refund. The court granted summary judgment to the United States, holding that the exchange did not qualify because the water rights were limited in priority, quantity, and duration and therefore were not of like-kind with a fee simple interest in land. The court reasoned that section 1031 requires comparison of the nature, character, and duration of the interests exchanged, and the water rights at issue were not sufficiently similar to the acquired real property interest.

taxesproperty

The case involved a tax refund suit by Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., seeking over $1.3 million for fiscal year 1989 after its partnership erroneously calculated an investment tax credit on its original return. The IRS had audited and settled only specific disputed expenditures via a Form 870-P agreement that adjusted the credit by $110,095, but the plaintiff claimed the settlement did not fix the overall erroneous credit amount and sought a refund without altering that adjustment. The court denied the government's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion. It held that it had jurisdiction because the refund claim was not barred by 26 U.S.C. § 7422(h) as the credit was no longer a partnership item after settlement, and the Form 870-P only bound the parties to the specific $110,095 adjustment, not the total credit computation, consistent with precedents like Alexander v. United States.

taxesprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Kayte Del Real sued her former employer HealthSouth in state court for wrongful termination in retaliation for reporting alleged regulatory violations, seeking damages for unpaid wages, time off, and a trebled severance package totaling under $75,000. Defendant removed the action to federal court on diversity jurisdiction grounds, asserting that the amount in controversy actually exceeded the $75,000 threshold. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that the defendant met its burden under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 by a preponderance of the evidence. The ruling relied on extrinsic evidence, including a settlement demand letter showing a one-year salary severance of $65,203 plus other benefits, which when trebled would surpass the jurisdictional minimum, as well as the plaintiff's refusal to stipulate to damages at or below $75,000.

procedurelabor & employment

The case involved a FOIA lawsuit by environmental plaintiffs seeking raw data from a U.S. Forest Service researcher on northern goshawk populations and nest sites on the Kaibab Plateau, which the agency had used in deciding not to list the bird as endangered. After initial withholding under FOIA exemption 5, the court remanded for consideration of Section 207 of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act, which protects certain information about rare or threatened National Park System resources. The court held that exemption 3 and Section 207 applied to withhold precise nest location data (accurate to less than one square mile) and related telemetry information due to the risk of harm to the goshawk population whose gene pool supports the species inside Grand Canyon National Park, but ordered production of other non-exempt records in redacted form. The reasoning centered on the statutory definitions of protected park resources and the unreasonable risk of harm from disclosure, without addressing the underlying Endangered Species Act issues.

environmentprocedure

This case concerned whether a debtor in a jointly administered Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, whose reorganization plan had been confirmed and fully consummated years earlier, was required to pay ongoing quarterly fees to the United States Trustee under 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6). The bankruptcy court denied the Trustee's request for post-confirmation fees on equitable grounds, finding that the debtor had not used the bankruptcy system after confirmation and that enforcement appeared selective. On appeal, the district court reversed, holding that the statute as amended in 1996 mandates payment of quarterly fees in every Chapter 11 case until conversion or dismissal, without exception for cases with confirmed or consummated plans, and that equitable relief is unavailable when a party fails to act diligently to close the case.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the United States Trustee's appeal from a bankruptcy court order denying its request for quarterly post-confirmation fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6) in the Chapter 11 reorganization of Kroy (Europe) Ltd. and Kroy, Inc., whose plan was confirmed in 1990 and substantially consummated before the 1996 amendments to the statute. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's decision, which had concluded it lacked jurisdiction to award such fees post-confirmation. The court reasoned that the bankruptcy court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157 because the fee request is related to the bankruptcy case, as it could affect the administration of the estate, and remanded the matter for further proceedings on additional arguments raised by the debtor.

business & regulatoryprocedure