The case involves plaintiff John Paul Micha, a gynecologic oncology surgeon, who sued Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and the Group Disability Benefits Plan after Sun Life denied his claim for long-term disability benefits following a heart attack and related symptoms that limited his ability to perform surgeries. The parties filed cross-motions asking the court to determine the proper scope of its review of the denial under ERISA. The court denied Sun Life's motion, granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's cross-motion, and ruled that review would be de novo but limited primarily to the administrative record. It admitted only a narrow set of additional documents, such as certain pre-denial records from Dr. Haskell and one independent medical exam, while excluding the rest of the proffered evidence for the time being, though it reserved the option to consider more later if needed.
In Zepeda v. Uribe, a state prisoner filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a prison disciplinary conviction for participating in a riot, which resulted in sanctions after two inmate fights involving rival gangs. The magistrate judge recommended granting the petition after finding the evidence insufficient under the "some evidence" standard from Superintendent v. Hill, as the prison relied only on the petitioner's gang affiliation and his position on a schematic map without showing active participation, and the district judge adopted the recommendation in full. The court determined that the state appellate decision upholding the discipline involved an unreasonable application of Supreme Court law and an unreasonable factual determination. The petition was granted and the case closed.
In this case, defendant Jose Luis Murguia-Marquez faced charges under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for attempted reentry after deportation after presenting himself at U.S. ports of entry in 2009. He moved to dismiss the charges by collaterally attacking his prior 2007 removal order, arguing that immigration proceedings violated due process because he was not advised of his eligibility for voluntary departure. The court denied the motion to dismiss. Although the proceedings were found to have deprived the defendant of due process, the court concluded that he suffered no prejudice because the immigration judge's denial of cancellation of removal made it implausible that voluntary departure would have been granted given the defendant's criminal record and other adverse factors.
This ERISA case involved a widow's claim for a $250,000 accidental death benefit under her employer's group accident policy after her husband died in a 2006 motorcycle crash. The insurer denied the claim, arguing the death was not an "accident" because it resulted from foreseeable conduct—driving at high speed (estimated 90 MPH) while intoxicated (BAC around 0.05-0.10%). The court granted judgment for the plaintiff, finding that the collision and death qualified as an accident under ERISA common law since the outcome was not substantially certain to occur, and no policy exclusions applied.
This case involves several RadioShack franchisees suing the company over alleged breaches of their franchise agreements and related claims. The plaintiffs asserted nine claims, including multiple breach of contract counts regarding provisions on area of primary responsibility, temporary franchise costs, minimum purchase requirements, and good faith and fair dealing, plus tort claims for interference with economic relations, Lanham Act violations, and unfair competition. The court granted RadioShack's motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, while denying it as to claims 2, 3, and 4; it also granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on claim 2 and ruled on various affirmative defenses and the availability of exemplary damages. The decisions rested on contract interpretation, the statute of limitations barring older claims, the absence of independent torts to support exemplary damages, and the lack of evidence supporting the dismissed claims.
The case involves a state prisoner suing four prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights after he filed a grievance about denied law library access and prepared a small claims suit; the officials responded by charging him with extortion, placing him in administrative segregation, and later transferring him. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the motion be granted in part and denied in part, and after de novo review of objections the district court adopted the report and recommendations in full, resulting in dismissal of some claims while allowing others to proceed based on whether the complaint stated plausible claims for relief.
