This case is a bankruptcy appeal arising from a 2001 dispute over the purchase of a Beechcraft King Air 200 airplane, where buyer Nick Corp. (owned by Nick Lopardo) sued seller JNS Aviation and related entities for breach of contract after issues with the plane; a default judgment was entered in Delaware, followed by claims in Texas federal court for fraud, fraudulent transfers, and piercing the corporate veil after the Sheltons transferred JNS assets to new entities. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's rulings in favor of Nick Corp. on all appealed issues, including that Nick Corp. had standing, the corporate veil could be pierced to hold individuals and successor entities liable, and fraudulent inducement occurred. The court reviewed legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error, finding no reversible mistakes in the bankruptcy court's determinations on alter-ego liability, res judicata barring attacks on the default judgment, and damages calculations. The opinion notes the underlying facts and prior proceedings in detail but upholds the outcomes without addressing every contested point.
This case involved Colony National Insurance Company seeking a declaratory judgment on whether its general liability insurance policy covered claims from three lawsuits arising from the asphyxiation deaths of dock workers due to leaking argon gas from a tanktainer owned by Specialty Trailer Leasing, Inc. The court granted summary judgment to Colony, holding that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Specialty. The reasoning centered on the policy's exclusion for bodily injuries from hazardous materials, including pollutants, where "pollutants" are defined as irritants or contaminants like chemicals; drawing from a similar Fifth Circuit precedent, the court determined that dangerously elevated concentrations of naturally occurring argon gas qualify as a pollutant under the exclusion.
This case involves hourly workers at a meat-packing facility who sued their employer and related entities under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid wages and overtime related to activities such as donning equipment, working off the clock, and inadequate breaks, under the Equal Pay Act for alleged gender-based pay disparities, and for retaliation. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability. It granted the defendants' summary judgment motion in part by dismissing certain plaintiffs whose claims were time-barred, ruling that fraudulent concealment did not apply to extend the limitations period, finding that some corporate entities were not employers under the FLSA and that the alter ego doctrine did not apply, and holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact on the Equal Pay Act claims because evidence showed women and men in similar positions received comparable pay. The court denied summary judgment on the remaining FLSA wage, overtime, and retaliation issues, finding genuine disputes of material fact that required a trial.
In Willingham v. Department of Labor, a pro se plaintiff sued for review of the Department of Labor's denial of her claim for benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, alleging that radiation exposure at the Pantex Plant caused her breast and skin cancers. The court granted the Department's motion for summary judgment. The decision was based on a dose reconstruction by NIOSH estimating a radiation exposure probability of causation at only 0.58%, far below the 50% threshold required for benefits under the Act. Applying the arbitrary and capricious standard of review to the administrative record, the court found the denial neither arbitrary nor capricious given the clear statutory prerequisite.
This case is a bankruptcy appeal in which a judgment creditor objected to the debtor's Chapter 7 discharge. The debtor had made multiple transfers of funds to entities he controlled in the months before filing, and the bankruptcy court denied discharge under sections 727(a)(2)(A) and 727(a)(3) for fraudulent transfers and failure to keep adequate records. The district court affirmed, holding that equitable tolling applied to the one-year lookback period under section 727(a)(2)(A) because the debtor's prior bankruptcy filings had prevented the creditor from pursuing its claim. The court also upheld the findings of intent to hinder creditors and inadequate record-keeping as not clearly erroneous.
The case involved plaintiff James Avery Rush, IV, a second-year medical student with a disability that substantially limited his reading and learning abilities, who sued the National Board of Medical Examiners after it denied his request for double time on the timed USMLE Step I licensing exam under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court granted a preliminary injunction ordering the Board to provide the requested accommodation, allowing the exam to be completed over two days instead of one. The decision rested on findings that the plaintiff's impairment substantially limited major life activities of reading and processing information compared to peers, that prior accommodations had enabled his academic success including on the MCAT, and that without accommodation his test performance would reflect his disability rather than his medical knowledge. The court further concluded that the balance of harms and public interest favored the injunction to prevent discrimination in licensing exams.
