Paul Gerhardt Rosenblatt

The case involved environmental organizations challenging the Bureau of Land Management's Resource Management Plans for the Grand Canyon-Parashant and Vermilion Cliffs National Monuments, which cover 1.3 million acres in Arizona. The plans addressed management of off-highway vehicle routes, livestock grazing, and protections for monument objects under the Antiquities Act, FLPMA, NEPA, and NHPA. The court denied the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion and granted the BLM's, upholding the plans. The reasoning centered on the BLM having adequately considered environmental impacts, mitigation measures, route designation criteria, cultural resource inventories, and alternatives for wilderness protections in compliance with statutory requirements.

environmentfederal power

This case involves a dispute under the Medicare Act between Flagstaff Medical Center, a Medicare provider, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services over the amount of reimbursement for air and ground ambulance services provided in fiscal years ending 1998 through 2001. The fiscal intermediary applied interim per-trip cost limits from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 using a blended rate for air and ground services and basing limits on the prior year's costs, and also applied limits after January 1, 2000 despite the delayed national fee schedule; the hospital appealed these determinations through the Provider Reimbursement Review Board to federal court. The court granted in part and denied in part the cross-motions for summary judgment, ruling that the hospital's appeal was timely, that the intermediary should have used 1997 as the base year for limits rather than the prior year, and that a single blended limit for air and ground services was improper given their differing costs, while not reaching the post-2000 authority issue. The core reasoning rested on statutory interpretation of the BBA's cost limit provisions, the Secretary's regulations, and the administrative record showing the hospital's timely filing and cost disparities.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Nancy Perryman, who stopped working in 1997 due to chronic fatigue syndrome and sought long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed group policy issued by defendant Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company to her employer. After initially paying benefits for two years under the policy's 'own occupation' provision, Provident terminated payments in 1999 upon determining that Perryman did not qualify as disabled from 'any occupation' for which she was reasonably fitted by education, training, or experience. Following a de novo bench trial review of the supplemented administrative record, including medical and vocational evidence, the court concluded that Perryman met the policy's criteria for disability from any occupation because she was unable to earn at least 80% of her indexed earnings and could not perform the material duties of any suitable occupation through age 65. The court therefore awarded her benefits from June 1, 1999, onward, along with prejudgment interest and attorney fees.

labor & employmenthealthcare

In Hess v. Ryan, a state prisoner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Maricopa County convictions for armed robbery (intertwined with a sexual assault case), raising multiple grounds including claims of improper searches, ineffective assistance of counsel, and sentencing errors. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full after de novo review. It held that four grounds were procedurally defaulted or barred on independent and adequate state grounds, with no showing of cause, prejudice, or actual innocence to excuse the defaults, and dismissed the remaining exhausted grounds as factually or legally meritless. The court therefore denied the petition in its entirety and dismissed the action with prejudice.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case is a securities class action brought on behalf of purchasers of Amkor Technology common stock from 2001 to 2006, alleging that the company and its officers made material misrepresentations about backdated stock option grants and, for part of the period, about product demand and financial forecasts in violation of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs claimed these actions caused overstated net income and a stock price decline after corrective disclosures. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, concluding that the allegations failed to adequately plead loss causation and a strong inference of scienter under the PSLRA pleading standards, and that certain forward-looking statements were protected by the safe harbor provision. The dismissal was with prejudice, as the plaintiffs had already amended their complaint multiple times.

business & regulatory

This case involves a dispute over whether an employee's state law claims for breach of contract and bad faith against an insurer for denying long-term disability benefits are preempted by ERISA. The court considered cross-motions for partial summary judgment on whether the group disability insurance plan qualified as an ERISA plan or fell under ERISA's safe harbor provisions exempting it from ERISA governance. The court determined that the employer, StorageTrac, did not establish or maintain an ERISA plan, as it served only as a conduit for the insurance provided by Jefferson Pilot, with the insurer handling all substantive administration and eligibility decisions. As a result, the court denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, finding the plan subject to the safe harbor and thus not governed by ERISA.

labor & employmentfederal power

The case involves Richard Lynn Bible's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his state conviction and death sentence for the kidnapping, molestation, and murder of a nine-year-old girl. The federal district court reviewed the merits of his exhausted constitutional claims after finding many procedurally barred. The court decided that Bible was not entitled to relief, concluding that his claims did not warrant habeas corpus intervention based on the record and applicable legal standards.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case arose after Forever Living Products U.S. Inc. sued attorneys involved in a related trademark and copyright dispute (Bach v. Forever Living Products) for defamation and tortious interference, based solely on their online posting seeking information from FLP distributors while investigating the Bach matter. The defendants removed the action to federal court in Arizona and moved to transfer it to the Western District of Washington under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), while FLP moved to remand it to state court. The court granted the transfer motion, finding that the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice favored transfer because the Washington court was already handling the closely related Bach litigation before Judge Pechman, all parties were subject to jurisdiction there, and the underlying facts involved counsel's investigation in that case. The court denied the motion to remand as a result.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves Fun Time Boat Rental & Storage, LLC seeking exoneration or limitation of liability under the federal Limitation of Liability Act for injuries Kimberly Gonzales suffered in a 2004 boating accident on Lake Havasu. Gonzales fell from the bow of a rented pontoon boat into the propeller after the operator, an intoxicated passenger, suddenly slowed the vessel; her family sued Fun Time in state court alleging negligence in warnings to passengers and failure to verify the renter's insurance. Fun Time filed this federal action to limit its exposure and moved for summary judgment, while the claimants sought additional discovery. The court granted summary judgment to Fun Time and exonerated it from all liability, reasoning that the company lacked privity or knowledge of any negligence, had provided required warnings and training to the renter, and owed no further duty to investigate the renter's experience or the passengers' conduct.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Aryon Williams, Jr., a state prisoner sentenced to death for the 1990 murder of Rita DeLaO. Claim 16 alleges that the prosecution violated Williams's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland by withholding exculpatory evidence suggesting another potential suspect existed for the crime. The court addressed Williams's motion seeking discovery, expansion of the record, and an evidentiary hearing on this claim. It granted the motion in part to permit limited discovery and an evidentiary hearing focused on whether another individual was in custody at the time of the murder, while denying other requests for record expansion, and it set deadlines for the parties to exchange and submit evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns various Indian tribes and environmental groups challenging the U.S. Forest Service's approval of upgrades to the Arizona Snowbowl ski area in the Coconino National Forest, including expanded snowmaking using reclaimed water, new facilities, and increased skiable terrain. The plaintiffs brought claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) after a bench trial, as well as under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other statutes, arguing that the project would harm sacred sites and the environment. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on the APA and related claims while evaluating the RFRA claims following trial, reviewing the Forest Service's extensive environmental analysis, tribal consultations, and prior court precedent upholding earlier developments at the site. It considered factual findings on the project's scope, impacts, and compliance with management plans, while rejecting certain trust and executive order claims as unsupported. The opinion includes detailed background on the ski area's history since 1938 and the administrative process leading to the 2005 Record of Decision.

religious libertyenvironmentfederal power

The case involved plaintiff Connie Pappas's claims against her former employer, J.S.B. Holdings, Inc., under Title VII for sex discrimination based on a hostile work environment due to sexual harassment and for retaliation. Pappas alleged that male coworkers in the engineering department harassed her through actions such as staring, bumping into her, tampering with her computer and personal items, and making sexually derogatory comments, because they resented her promotion to Quality Assurance Manager and her higher salary, ultimately leading to her resignation. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on both counts. It found genuine issues of material fact after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Pappas, including her diary entries, testimony, and reports to supervisors, which could support that the harassment was based on sex and was sufficiently severe or pervasive.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case arose from a securities fraud action in which the plaintiff alleged that he was induced to sell his company in a merger for IFC stock that was artificially inflated in value due to accounting fraud and misleading statements by IFC's officers and directors, leading to the stock becoming worthless after IFC's bankruptcy. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, directing the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint that complies with the PSLRA's heightened pleading requirements for particularity and scienter. Although the court noted that the complaint appeared to state some federal and Arizona securities fraud claims against at least one defendant, it dismissed all counts—including those under Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a), and related state laws—because the allegations lacked the necessary specificity regarding misstatements, omissions, and the defendants' roles. The ruling emphasized judicial economy and the strict standards applicable to such claims under federal and Arizona securities laws.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved parents who sought to install tiles with religious messages, such as 'God Bless Quinn, We Love You Mom & Dad' and 'In God We Trust, the Seidman Family,' as part of a school-authorized PTO fundraiser at a public elementary school; the school initially rejected the messages citing concerns over separation of church and state but later accepted a revised non-religious version of one. The Seidmans sued the school district and officials, alleging violations of their federal and state constitutional rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, and equal protection, as well as related state statutes. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted judgment to the plaintiffs on their freedom of speech and equal protection claims, finding that the tile program constituted a limited public forum in which the school engaged in impermissible viewpoint discrimination, while granting judgment to the individual defendants on qualified immunity grounds for the remaining claims.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

In Doyal v. United States, pro se plaintiffs sued to invalidate an IRS appeals office determination regarding their 1999 income taxes, recover federal tax withholdings applied since the early 1970s, and obtain related costs and damages, arguing that IRS employees lacked statutory authority to collect taxes or issue notices in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the entire action. The core reasoning was that sovereign immunity bars suits against the United States absent a specific statutory waiver, which the plaintiffs had not identified; jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) for tax refund claims requires full payment of the assessed tax and an administrative refund claim, neither of which occurred here; and the court lacked authority to issue declaratory or injunctive relief regarding tax assessments due to the Anti-Injunction Act and related limits.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a dispute between owner-operator truck drivers and transportation companies over contracts for hauling services, with the defendants seeking to enforce an arbitration clause in the agreements. The court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims. It reasoned that the defendants had not waived their arbitration rights through their litigation conduct, that the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption for employment contracts did not apply because the plaintiffs were independent contractors rather than employees, and that the federal statutory claims fell within the scope of the broad arbitration provision. The court also addressed but did not find the arbitration clause unenforceable as a contract of adhesion or one-sided under Tennessee law.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case was an ADA retaliation claim brought by Steven Garber against Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University after his contract as a professor and department chair was not renewed. Garber alleged the non-renewal and earlier demotion stemmed from his efforts to hire a disabled veteran as his assistant and his threat to report fuel dumping. The court granted the university's motion for summary judgment, holding that the university provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons based on repeated reprimands for unprofessional conduct and that Garber offered no evidence those reasons were pretextual. It denied Garber's motion for reconsideration of his previously dismissed state whistleblower claim and his own summary judgment motion.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case concerned whether the plaintiff's individual disability insurance policy, obtained through his company's list billing arrangement with the defendant insurer, was part of an ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan that would preempt his state law claims for denied benefits after heart surgery. The court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the ERISA issue and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. It reasoned that the policy was not subject to ERISA because the employer did not endorse the plan beyond premium billing, satisfying the safe harbor regulation under 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-3, and the arrangement involved only owners at key times without meeting the criteria for an ERISA plan. The decision was based on undisputed facts about the policy purchase and administration, with the burden on the defendant to establish ERISA applicability.

labor & employmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case was a class action lawsuit against the IRS alleging improper disclosure of tax return information under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6103 and 7431 after an accountant received unauthorized transcripts for 1,391 non-clients. Plaintiffs sought actual and punitive damages but stipulated they had suffered no actual damages, and the IRS conceded liability for statutory damages of $1,000 per plaintiff. The court granted summary judgment to the IRS on claims for actual or punitive damages, reasoning that punitive damages require actual damages under applicable law and that treble damages had not been pleaded, while awarding only the statutory amount; it also denied class counsel's request to impose a charging lien for attorneys' fees, concluding plaintiffs were not prevailing parties entitled to such fees under the statute. The court further clarified that certain individual plaintiffs could not recover actual damages.

taxesprocedure

This case involves parents suing vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers in Arizona state court on behalf of their young son, alleging that mercury-based preservatives in childhood vaccines caused his neurological injuries and developmental regression; the claims included strict products liability, negligence, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, and battery. Defendants removed the case to federal district court, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and diversity jurisdiction by arguing that the local healthcare providers were fraudulently joined as sham defendants. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that the Vaccine Act does not completely preempt state-law claims so as to create federal question jurisdiction and that the defendants failed to meet the high burden of showing fraudulent joinder, thereby preserving diversity-destroying parties. The court denied without prejudice the request for attorneys' fees and costs associated with the remand motion.

procedurehealthcarefederal powertorts & liability