FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Family Law

[03/11] Schaar v. Lehigh Valley Health Servs., Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer for violation of the FMLA, summary judgment in favor employer is vacated and remanded as an employee may satisfy her burden of proving three days of incapacitation through a combination of expert medical and lay testimony. Here, when expert medical opinion of a doctor that plaintiff was incapacitated for two days because of her illness is combined with plaintiff's lay testimony that she was incapacitated for two additional days, it necessarily follows that a material issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff suffered from a serious health condition.

[03/11] A.H. v. Sup. Ct.
A father's writ of mandate seeking relief from a juvenile court order terminating his family reunification services and setting a permanency hearing is denied as the court correctly weighed and considered all relevant factors under all three code provisions, including the father's incarceration, in making its decision and the court's reasoning was logical and amply supported by the record.

[03/05] People v. Warwick
Conviction of defendant of child abuse and neglect and jury's true finding on the enhancement that she personally inflicted great bodily injury on her child is affirmed as, when she gave birth to her son in her bedroom and concealed the birth causing severe injuries, defendant inflicted great bodily injury on her child.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

[03/04] In re E.O.
Juvenile court's denial of a father's request for presumed father status is affirmed as the only provision of Family Code section 7611 that might possibly apply is subdivision (d) which states that a man is a presumed father if he "receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child," and here, the father did not establish that he came within this or any of the categories set forth in Family Code section 7611.

[03/03] Mendoza v. Ramos
In a father's petition to modify custody and support orders of his four children, the court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) trial court's refusal to attribute income because the mother was receiving CalWORKs was proper; and 2) the father's rights were not violated as neither parties requested testimony.

[02/26] In Re Marriage of MacManus
In marital dissolution proceedings, trial court's order reallocating back child support to back spousal support is affirmed as, the order was not an abuse given the trial court's broad discretion to consider the "big picture" concerning the parties' assets and income available for support in light of the marriage standard of living.

[02/26] In re Marcos G.
In dependency proceedings, an order denying a father's 388 petition and terminating his parental rights is affirmed where: 1) although there was a failure to follow certain notice provisions, the error was not prejudicial; and 2) father's section 388 petition was not an abuse of discretion.

[02/23] Murray v. Lene
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging, inter alia, an unlawful seizure, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law claims; 2) plaintiff's conspiracy claim failed because the complaint failed to allege a "meeting of the minds" among the alleged conspirators; and 3) recklessness could be inferred from the omission of information from an affidavit only when the material omitted would have been clearly critical to the finding of probable cause.

[02/23] In re W.B.
Juvenile court's order removing a minor from his mother's custody and ordering him placed in a foster home, group home, relative home, county or private facility is affirmed as, because the ICWA excludes delinquencies from its notice requirements, any attempts by the State of California to expand ICWA's application to delinquencies is unauthorized under federal preemption doctrine.

More...

Judgment Enforcement

[03/04] Tivo Inc. v. Echostar Corp.
In a patent infringement action against EchoStar, relating to the software component of plaintiff's patent that allows television users to simultaneously record and play broadcasts using what is commonly known as a digital video recorder (DVR), district court's decision finding defendants in contempt of a permanent injunction is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decision to hold contempt proceedings; 2) there was clear and convincing evidence before the district court to find that both types of EchoStar receivers continue to infringe and that it was not an abuse of discretion for the ocurt to find EchoStar in contempt of the infringement provision; and 3) given defendant's refusal to disable the DVR functionality in its existing devices and the fact that its original attempts to design around TiVo's patent were wholly unsuccessful, the district court had ample justification for its determination that court pre-approval of any new design-around effort was necessary to prevent future infringing activity.

[02/26] Office Depot Inc. v. Zuccarini
In a judgment debtor's appeal from an order appointing a receiver to take control of and auction off some of debtor's domain names in order to satisfy the judgment, the order is affirmed where: 1) Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003), was still an accurate statement of California law, and domain names are intangible property subject to a writ of execution; and 2) domain names were personal property located wherever the registry or the registrar were located.

[02/23] Gonzalez-Vera v. Townley
In an action seeking to invoke one of 18 U.S.C. section 3523's enforcement procedures, the appointment of a guardian to help collect a judgment against an individual under the Witness Protection Program, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) Congress intended to make guardianship available only where the Attorney General found that the protected person was failing to make reasonable efforts?that is, only where disclosure to a guardian was necessary to enforce the judgment; and 2) here, the Attorney General determined that the protected person was making reasonable efforts to satisfy the judgment.

[02/17] Roberts v. Printup
In a garnishment action against an insurer to collect a judgment that was in excess of the policy limits, claiming that defendant negligently or in bad faith delayed in accepting an offer to settle within the policy's limits, judgment for defendant is reversed where it was foreseeable to defendant that its negligence in failing to implement a system to handle reasonable time-sensitive settlement offers from an injured party could result in a lawsuit being filed against its insured.

[02/09] Schultz v. US
In an appeal from the district court's denial of appellant's motion to intervene as of right in a securities fraud action, the order is affirmed where appellant was improperly attempting to enforce a restitution order in a parallel criminal action in a manner outside the scope of 18 U.S.C. section 3664(m)(1)(B).

[01/27] Bergquist v. Mann Bracken, LLP
In plaintiff's action seeking to set aside a judgment enforcing an arbitration award against her initiated by a law firm hired by her credit card company to collect the debt, district court's decision to remand the case after defendants removed the case under the Class Action Fairness Act is vacated and remanded where: 1) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply to plaintiff's claim where she is no longer a state-court loser, as the state judiciary itself vacated its decision enforcing the arbitration award; and 2) the district court must determine whether the jurisdictional requirements of the 2005 Act have been met and, if they have been, for the certification of an appropriate class and decision on the merits.

[01/26] Ho v. Hsieh
In a judgment creditor's action under California Uniform Commercial Code section 8112 to reach shares of stock owned by the judgment debtor and his wife to satisfy a money judgment, judgment of the trial court is reversed as it was an abuse of discretion to order worthless shares of stock transferred to a judgment creditor in satisfaction of a money judgment without any reduction in the outstanding judgment.

[01/25] Stein v. York
In plaintiff's legal malpractice action against her attorney, trial court's entry judgment of $2.65 million in favor of the plaintiff is reversed where: 1) a default judgment for an amount greater than that stated in the complaint is void; 2) constructive notice of potential liability does not satisfy Code of Civil Procedure section 580; 3) the judgment is void and vacated as plaintiff did not comply with the notice requirement; and 4) plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

[10/30] Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP v. Nat'l Dev. & Research Corp.
In plaintiff's legal malpractice case, court of appeals' judgment in favor of plaintiff is reversed where: 1) there is legally insufficient evidence to support a finding that damages in the underlying suit would have been collectible; and 2) the defendant attorneys' negligence did not proximately cause the entire amount the jury awarded as damages for attorney's fees and expenses. Because there is some evidence that the attorneys' negligence caused some amount of attorney's fees and expenses in the underlying suit, the case is remanded.

[10/23] Miga v. Jensen
In plaintiff's case against defendant arising from breach of an option agreement under which the plaintiff would have been entitled to buy stock in a privately held corporation, the judgment of the court of appeals' is affirmed as the creditor may keep the money paid toward satisfying the judgment because equitable principles of restitution apply.

More...