Richard Everett Dorr

Melissa Earll, a deaf plaintiff, sued eBay alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Disabled Persons Act after she was unable to telephonically verify her identity to sell items on the platform as required by eBay's policies. eBay moved to dismiss or transfer the case based on a forum selection clause in its user agreement that required disputes to be resolved in Santa Clara County, California. The court granted the motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California and denied the motion to dismiss as moot. It reasoned that the forum selection clause was valid and enforceable, applied to the plaintiff's claims as they related to use of the website, and did not contravene public policy because the plaintiff could still pursue her claims in California without being deprived of her day in court.

civil rightsprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a lawsuit by Hans Joachim Keil, a Samoan diplomat, against several individual defendants following his arrest on charges of being an illegal alien, despite his production of a facially valid U.S. passport and statements that he was a U.S. citizen, military veteran, and diplomat. The defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds and sought to stay all discovery pending resolution of those motions. The court denied the motion to stay in part, permitting limited discovery focused on the information available to the defendants at the time of the arrest regarding Keil's immigration status or basis for arrest. The core reasoning was that Keil's complaint sufficiently alleged a violation of clearly established law under precedents like Harlow v. Fitzgerald, Mitchell v. Forsyth, and Anderson v. Creighton, making a complete stay of discovery inappropriate while still limiting the scope to avoid broad-reaching inquiries.

civil rightsimmigrationprocedurecriminal law

In United States v. Johnson, the defendant, a weightlifting coach, was convicted by a jury of eight counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e) for secretly filming female athletes, including minors, undressing and weighing themselves in a room with a hidden camera. The district court granted the defendant's motion for acquittal notwithstanding the verdict due to insufficient evidence. The court reasoned that the statute requires persuading a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction, specifically a lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area, which involves more than mere nudity or incidental exposure, and the videos at issue did not meet this standard as they captured only partial or shaded views without enhancement or other indicators of lasciviousness. The court noted that the conduct might violate other state or federal laws, such as video voyeurism, but did not constitute the charged federal offense.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Johnson, a jury convicted the defendant, a weightlifting coach, of eight counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e) for using a hidden camera to film female athletes, including minors, undressing to weigh themselves in a private room. The district court granted the defendant's motion for acquittal notwithstanding the verdict due to insufficient evidence. The court reasoned that the federal statute requires persuading a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct, such as a lascivious exhibition, for the purpose of producing visual depictions, but the facts showed only unknowing surreptitious filming without any such persuasion or direction, which instead constituted video voyeurism under other federal or state laws.

criminal law

In this case, plaintiff Debby Rose sued Wal-Mart, Cox Health, and the Springfield-Greene County Health Department under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming the defendants discriminated against her by denying her access to public establishments while accompanied by her Bonnet Macaque monkey, which she alleged was a service animal for her anxiety disorder and agoraphobia; the health department had sent letters advising food service businesses not to admit her with the monkey. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that her conditions substantially limited a major life activity, that her recent diagnosis was based solely on subjective reports, and that the monkey performed specific tasks qualifying it as a service animal under the ADA rather than merely providing comfort.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved the estate of Buford Anderson, who was killed when flood waters swept the car he was riding in off a private drive, seeking uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage under his Safeco policy after the driver's insurer, Sagamore, denied the claim on the grounds that poor driveway repairs caused the accident rather than the driver's fault. Safeco denied the claims, asserting that Sagamore had not denied coverage but only fault, and that the policy declarations page did not provide underinsured coverage. The court granted summary judgment to Safeco, holding that the uninsured motorist provision requires denial of coverage by the other insurer, not merely a denial of fault, and that the unambiguous policy language tied underinsured coverage to the declarations page; without coverage, the vexatious refusal claim also failed.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Ratliff v. Mentor Corp., the plaintiff sought to bring a class action on behalf of Missouri residents who received a Mentor UBTape sling implant for urinary stress incontinence, alleging defects that could cause latent injuries and requesting equitable relief including a medical monitoring fund, disgorgement of profits, and a declaratory judgment, while explicitly excluding personal injury or wrongful death claims. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The core reasoning was that Missouri law, as established in Meyer v. Fluor Corp., recognizes medical monitoring claims only in the context of exposure to toxic substances, and federal courts in diversity cases should not expand state tort liability beyond what the state supreme court has clearly approved.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

This case involved a taxpayer challenging an IRS Collection Due Process hearing decision that sustained a federal tax lien for unpaid 1040 income taxes from 1998-2001 and a civil penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6682 for 1996. The plaintiff filed a petition in federal district court arguing that wages and compensation were not taxable income, that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize such taxes, that he was a non-resident alien not subject to U.S. tax, and that the IRS lacked proper authority, among other claims; he sought to set aside the lien and penalty determinations. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss, ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the income tax liabilities because 26 U.S.C. § 6330 requires appeals of such CDP determinations to be filed in the U.S. Tax Court within 30 days, and that the claims regarding the 1996 civil penalty failed to state a claim because they rested on frivolous positions repeatedly rejected by the Eighth Circuit.

taxesprocedure