James A. Teilborg

This case is a district court appeal from a bankruptcy court's confirmation of a Chapter 11 reorganization plan for Red Mountain Machinery Co., in which secured creditor Comerica Bank challenged three rulings: partial denial of its § 1111(b) election to treat its claim as fully secured, the adequacy of equity contributions by the owners under the new value exception, and the interest rate to be paid on its claim going forward. The court granted the motion to dismiss the § 1111(b) claim as untimely under Bankruptcy Rule 8002 and dismissed the new value claim as equitably moot because the plan had been substantially consummated without a stay, making effective relief impossible without disrupting third-party expectations and clawing back distributions. On the interest rate issue, the court applied de novo review to the legal standard but gave deference to factual findings, holding that the bankruptcy court correctly used the formula approach from Till v. SCS Credit Corp. and properly considered the relevant loan characteristics without error. The court therefore affirmed the bankruptcy court's interest rate determination.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a former Lowe's employee alleging she faced a hostile work environment due to repeated sexual conversations by managers and was terminated after applying for a transfer to escape it, resulting in claims including sex discrimination, retaliation, negligent misrepresentation, and both negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On the defendant's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, the court dismissed the retaliation claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the negligent misrepresentation claim for lack of a duty or sufficient facts, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because the alleged conduct was not extreme enough, while allowing the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim to continue due to the employment relationship. The rulings applied the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards under Rule 12(c) and Arizona tort law principles regarding duties and outrageous conduct.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

This case involves a dispute over alleged copyright infringement of four works created from 1993 video recordings of workshops on the Flower of Life meditation teachings, including books, illustrations, and video compilations. Plaintiff Drunvalo Melchizedek and related entities claim ownership and licensing rights to these works and allege that defendants, including former licensed facilitators Ronald Holt and others, continued unauthorized use after licenses ended. The court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding material factual disputes regarding access, copying, and the applicability of defenses such as abandonment of copyright and consent. The case was therefore set for trial rather than resolved on the papers.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns allegations by B2B CFO Partners and Jerry Mills that former partner Kenneth Kaufman and his new CFO business infringed the copyright in their 2005 training manual by creating and distributing similar manuals in 2008 and 2009. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on copyright infringement and an injunction, while defendants cross-moved for partial summary judgment to bar statutory damages and attorneys' fees under the Copyright Act. The court denied plaintiffs' motion and granted defendants' motion, holding that any infringement began with the pre-registration distribution of the 2008 manual and that later distributions did not commence a new and separate infringement. The ruling rested on Ninth Circuit precedent interpreting 17 U.S.C. § 412, which limits remedies when infringement starts before copyright registration.

business & regulatoryproperty

This multidistrict litigation consolidated several class actions against mortgage companies, banks, trustees, and MERS entities alleging fraud and related claims arising from mortgage origination, servicing, and foreclosure practices in Arizona, Nevada, and California. The court addressed dozens of motions to dismiss the complaints, focusing on whether the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded the elements of fraud under the respective state laws, which require a false representation, knowledge of falsity, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and resulting damages. Finding the allegations deficient, the court dismissed the complaints without prejudice for failure to state a claim and directed the plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint in a single action while denying other theories without prejudice.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit filed by MMI, Inc. against several defendants, including Baja, Inc. and Rural King Holding Company, regarding the design of a motorized mini bike protected by U.S. Patent No. D591,203S. The court granted Baja's motion to file a license agreement under seal, finding it contained trade secrets warranting protection under the good cause standard for non-dispositive filings. It also granted Rural King Holding's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, as MMI failed to provide evidence linking the defendant to the forum or rebutting declarations denying jurisdiction, and denied additional discovery.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by Aloe Vera of America, Inc. and related plaintiffs against the United States alleging that the IRS made unauthorized disclosures of their tax return information to the Japanese National Tax Administration under a bilateral tax convention, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6103, entitling them to damages under 26 U.S.C. § 7431. On limited remand from the Ninth Circuit, the district court was directed to determine whether the two-year statute of limitations from discovery of the disclosures had expired, rendering the claims jurisdictionally barred. The court analyzed evidence regarding when plaintiffs learned of the disclosures for both Count I and Count II but concluded that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of establishing timely discovery dates, particularly for the multiple disclosures alleged in Count II. As a result, the court dismissed Count II for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) while accepting that jurisdiction over Count I was not contested.

taxesprocedure

This case involved a plaintiff who sued a debt collection company under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for statutory damages. The defendant made an offer of judgment for $1,001 plus reasonable costs and attorney fees, which the plaintiff accepted, resulting in entry of judgment. The court then addressed the plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs, applying the lodestar method to calculate a reasonable fee award under the FDCPA's mandatory fee-shifting provision. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the fees were unreasonable due to disproportion to the damages recovered or excessive hourly rates and hours, emphasizing Congress's intent to encourage private enforcement of the statute without tying fees to a percentage of damages. It awarded $3,010.71 in fees and costs after adjustments to the requested amount.

business & regulatory

The case involved the EEOC's lawsuit against Southwestern Furniture of Wisconsin, LLC, alleging that the company violated Title VII by discriminating against and retaliating against employee Jill Vanderploeg through a transfer to another store after she complained of sexual harassment by coworkers. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The reasoning was that the employer had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the transfer—to separate Vanderploeg from the accused individuals following an investigation that found insufficient evidence of harassment—and the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that these reasons were pretextual for sex discrimination or retaliation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved BBK Tobacco & Foods, a distributor of flavored rolling papers sold separately for use in roll-your-own cigarettes, challenging FDA guidance documents interpreting the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act's ban on characterizing flavors in cigarettes and their component parts. BBK sought a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and summary judgment, arguing the guidance improperly extended the ban to its non-tobacco products. The court granted the FDA's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), denying all of BBK's motions. The core reasoning was that the issues were not ripe for judicial review because the FDA's statements were not final agency action with legal consequences, and BBK had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved a 13-year-old public high school student who was twice suspended for alleged alcohol and marijuana use on campus; her parents sued the school district and principal under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivations of the right to attend public school and equal protection. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. It reasoned that no protected constitutional right was implicated by the short-term suspensions, that the class-of-one theory of equal protection is unavailable in the public-school disciplinary context under Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, and that expungement of records was therefore unavailable. The court applied the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard to conclude that the allegations failed to state viable federal claims.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a dispute between a general contractor and an insurer over coverage under additional insured endorsements in commercial general liability policies issued to a plumbing and HVAC subcontractor for work on a resort construction project. After the resort owner sued the contractor for construction defects and the parties settled, the contractor sought defense and indemnification from the insurer, which denied the claim. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the underlying allegations and documents did not trigger the endorsements because coverage was limited to liability arising from the subcontractor's ongoing operations and negligence. The decision was based on Arizona law interpreting the plain language of the policy endorsements and the facts presented in the tender for coverage.

business & regulatory

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by Colony Insurance Company against its insured Events Plus, Inc. and other parties, seeking a ruling that a commercial general liability policy provides no coverage for claims in an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. The underlying suit alleged that Events Plus and others served alcohol to a minor at a 2006 event, leading to intoxication and a fatal car accident involving a police officer. Colony and the Targosz defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the policy's liquor liability exclusion barred coverage. The court granted Colony's motion, holding that the exclusion applied to the claims because they arose from the provision of alcohol, and denied the Targosz defendants' motion. The court also entered default judgment against Events Plus, confirming Colony had no duty to defend or indemnify it in the underlying action.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by an alien who was detained by immigration authorities under the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) based on a prior criminal conviction. The petitioner, who had received a final order of removal but obtained a stay from the Ninth Circuit pending appeal, sought release or a bond hearing due to the extended length of his detention. The district court reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation de novo, determined that the petitioner had conceded removability and was not required to exhaust remedies through a Joseph hearing, and held that the prolonged and indefinite nature of the detention violated constitutional limits as interpreted in cases such as Tijani v. Willis and Demore v. Kim. The court therefore granted the petition in part by ordering the government to provide the petitioner with a bond hearing before an immigration judge within 30 days.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

The case involved Designer Skin, a manufacturer of tanning products, suing S & L Vitamins, an online reseller, for trademark infringement, dilution, copyright infringement, and intentional interference with contract after S & L sold genuine Designer Skin products on its websites while using the manufacturer's trademarks in text, metatags, and search keywords. The district court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment. It granted summary judgment to S & L on the trademark infringement claims, holding that the use of the marks to accurately identify products being sold did not create a likelihood of confusion, including initial interest confusion, because the products were genuine and the use was nominative. The court also addressed related counterclaims and noted that the first-to-file rule did not apply at this stage.

business & regulatory

The case is a qui tam False Claims Act action brought by former IASIS compliance officer Jerre Frazier alleging that the company and its hospitals submitted false claims to Medicare and other federal health programs by billing for medically unnecessary services and violating anti-kickback rules. The court granted IASIS's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b). The core reasoning was that the complaint lacked the required particularity—specific facts identifying the who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged fraudulent claims and referrals—and that further amendment would be futile given the case's age, prior amendments, and the relator's inability to access additional information without government intervention or discovery.

healthcarecriminal lawprocedure

In Bean v. McDougal Littell, photographer Tom Bean sued textbook publisher McDougal Littell and printer R.R. Donnelley for copyright infringement, alleging they exceeded a limited license to print 45,000 copies of his photograph in textbooks, and sued McDougal for fraud based on alleged misrepresentations about the intended print run to secure a lower fee. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to improper copyright registration and that the fraud claim was preempted by the Copyright Act. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint's allegations of proper registration were sufficient on their face to establish federal jurisdiction under a facial attack, and that the fraud claim included an extra element of intentional misrepresentation regarding contract formation that distinguished it from a copyright claim and avoided preemption.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Medical Protective Company (MPC) and Dr. Herman Pang over MPC's attempt to rescind an increase in liability limits on Dr. Pang's medical malpractice insurance policy from $1 million to $5 million per claim. The policy covered a July 2001–2002 term, and the increase was requested in 2002 after Dr. Pang performed surgery on a patient who later sued him for malpractice; the request form asked about knowledge of potential claims and peer reviews, which Dr. Pang answered in the negative. MPC sought partial rescission and summary judgment on related issues, while Dr. Pang filed a cross-motion and counterclaimed for bad faith. The court granted partial summary judgment to MPC on the materiality of the answers for its rescission claim and on punitive damages for the bad faith claim, granted partial summary judgment to Dr. Pang on certain fraud and peer-review issues, and denied the rest, leaving multiple factual questions for trial under Arizona insurance law standards for fraud, reliance, and good faith.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liability

The Quechan Indian Tribe sued the Department of the Interior and related federal and non-federal defendants, alleging that the Bureau of Reclamation violated NEPA, NHPA, the Wellton-Mohawk Transfer Act, and the APA by transferring federal lands to the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District without adequately analyzing potential environmental and cultural resource impacts from future uses such as an oil refinery. The district court considered cross-motions for summary judgment after earlier denying a preliminary injunction. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the Title Transfer did not require further NEPA review of indirect or speculative future developments because the refinery was not a direct effect of the transfer and could occur on non-transfer lands. The core reasoning was that BOR had taken the requisite hard look at impacts during the environmental review process, that the MOA did not contemplate changes in land use, and that NHPA consultation efforts were reasonable.

environmentpropertyfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned a dispute between the Chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee for owners of Section 16, a 657-acre parcel in Pinal County, Arizona, and the Gila River Indian Community over rights to access the land, which is surrounded by the Gila River Indian Reservation. The trustee sought a determination that easements or public rights-of-way existed via Smith-Enke Road and Murphy Road for access and utilities, that GRIC lacked zoning authority over Section 16, and that no trespass had occurred on reservation lands. After a bench trial, the court ruled that the trustee was entitled to legal access to Section 16, GRIC could not exercise zoning authority over the parcel, and no trespass on GRIC's tribal or allotted lands had taken place. The court's conclusions rested on historical surveys, conveyances under federal law, the status of the roads, and application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 regarding indispensable parties.

propertyfederal power