The case arose from a 1998 bombing by the Colombian Air Force near an oil pipeline operated by Occidental Petroleum in Colombia, which killed and injured civilian plaintiffs; the plaintiffs sued the American company and its security contractor under the Alien Tort Statute and related laws alleging assistance to the military operation. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) but ultimately dismissed the entire case. The core reasoning was that adjudication would require the judiciary to second-guess foreign military actions and Executive Branch foreign policy determinations favoring non-judicial remedies, rendering the dispute a non-justiciable political question under the Baker factors.
The case involves Colombian plaintiffs suing American companies Occidental Petroleum and AirScan for their alleged role in a 1998 Colombian military bombing of a civilian village that killed 17 people, including family members of the plaintiffs, under claims pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute, the Torture Victim Protection Act, and state tort laws. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the case should proceed in Colombia under the doctrines of forum non conveniens and international comity. The court denied the motion to dismiss. It reasoned that the existence of parallel foreign proceedings did not require abstention, there was no certain true conflict with Colombian proceedings or interests, and the federal statutory claims involving US companies and extraterritorial conduct supported the exercise of jurisdiction in US court.
The case involved members of the band KISS and their company suing a DVD distributor for releasing footage of a 1976 concert without authorization, asserting claims including copyright infringement and anti-bootlegging under federal law. The court denied the motion to dismiss the copyright claim, holding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged ownership of the work and infringement by the defendants. However, it granted dismissal of the anti-bootlegging claim, ruling that 17 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3) is unconstitutional because it conflicts with limitations in the Copyright Clause, such as the fixation requirement. The decision focused on the adequacy of pleadings for copyright and constitutional constraints on Congress's authority to enact the anti-bootlegging statute.
In Wesley v. Davis, a recently released prisoner sued prison officials and medical staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they violated his Eighth Amendment rights by retaliating against his internal appeal for stronger pain medication for a re-aggravated back injury; the alleged retaliation included shredding his medical records and other corrupt acts to derail the appeal. The district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed claims against certain defendants, such as Dr. Doan, due to lack of evidence of personal involvement or deliberate indifference. However, it denied summary judgment on claims involving the intentional destruction of medical records, holding that such acts violate the Eighth Amendment both by preventing accurate assessment of medical needs and as independent malicious punishment that offends standards of dignity and decency, regardless of physical harm.
The case involved the sentencing of defendant Kelli Davis after her conviction on six counts of wire fraud for submitting false information about borrowers in applications for FHA-insured loans. The government sought a 13-point sentencing enhancement under the guidelines based on losses from 82 additional uncharged transactions, but the court addressed whether Blakely v. Washington required those facts to be found by a jury. Applying the Ninth Circuit's Ameline decision, which held that Blakely applies to the federal sentencing guidelines, the court ruled that a sentencing jury could not be used for the enhancement because the additional offenses were time-barred by the statute of limitations and could not have been charged or presented to the jury at trial. The court therefore decided to sentence the defendant based on an eight-point offense level without the enhancements or a sentencing jury, while also noting plans for an alternative indeterminate sentence pending Supreme Court review of related cases.
The case involved Loree Rodkin Management Corp. suing various defendants for copyright infringement of five jewelry designs after submitting registration applications and fees to the Copyright Office but before receiving any certificates. Defendant Charles Winston Enterprises moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), which states that no infringement action shall be instituted until registration has been made. The court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, holding that the statute requires actual issuance of a registration certificate by the Copyright Office after examination rather than mere delivery of the application. It reasoned from the plain language of §§ 410(a) and 411(a) that registration occurs only after the Register determines the material is copyrightable and issues the certificate, and that delivery alone does not suffice even if registration is later refused.