Gary A. Fenner

In Hobbs v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance, plaintiff Dennis Hobbs challenged the termination of his long-term disability benefits by defendant Hartford, which had been paying benefits since 1995 due to cardiovascular conditions. The court granted Hartford's motion for judgment on the administrative record and denied Hobbs's cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision was based on surveillance footage showing physical activity, a stress test indicating capability for certain exertion, and medical opinions from reviewing physicians concluding that Hobbs could perform full-time sedentary work, making the termination of benefits reasonable under the plan's "total disability" definition requiring inability to engage in any qualified occupation.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case concerned plaintiffs Community of Christ Copyright Corp. and Community of Christ, owners of multiple federal registered trademarks and common-law rights in names and designs such as REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, RLDS, and associated peace seals, who sued defendants Devon Park Restoration Branch of Jesus Christ’s Church and its minister for using those marks without permission on church signage, a website, literature, seals, flags, and certificates. Plaintiffs asserted claims for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125, and sought summary judgment plus a permanent injunction; defendants raised counterclaims for cancellation and opposed on grounds including religious beliefs. The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in full, dismissed the counterclaims, and entered a permanent injunction ordering defendants to cease all use of the marks, alter their sign and website, remove displays, and notify publishers. The reasoning centered on plaintiffs’ ownership and continuous use of the marks for over a century, defendants’ admitted unauthorized use creating a likelihood of confusion, the absence of any genuine issues of material fact, and the need for neutrality under the First Amendment that precluded consideration of religious tenets in the trademark analysis.

business & regulatory

In United States v. Davison, the Government moved for summary judgment and a permanent injunction, alleging that certified public accountant and attorney Allen R. Davison had for over a decade promoted multiple abusive tax arrangements—including sham management companies, ESOPs, Roth IRAs, 412(i) plans, chicken-farming deductions, inflated basis claims, and tool-reimbursement programs—while failing to register as a material advisor by filing Form 8264. Davison cross-moved for summary judgment, denying personal promotion of unlawful schemes and asserting First Amendment protection for his tax advice. The court denied both motions, holding that material factual disputes existed concerning whether the arrangements lacked substantial authority, the extent of Davison’s role in advising clients and ensuring compliance with corporate formalities, and whether he qualified as a material advisor. The court further noted that the First Amendment would not shield commercial speech promoting unlawful or fraudulent tax activities if those facts were ultimately proven.

taxesfree speech

This case is a patent infringement dispute between Cerner Corporation and Visicu, Inc. involving two patents ('656 and '708) for remote ICU patient monitoring systems, along with related counterclaims for trade secret misappropriation. Cerner sought declaratory judgments of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability, while Visicu asserted infringement claims (direct, contributory, and induced) and misappropriation. The court denied Cerner's summary judgment motions on non-infringement, invalidity, and willful infringement, denied Visicu's motion asserting no inequitable conduct, granted Cerner's motion on intervening rights, and granted in part and denied in part Cerner's motion on trade secret misappropriation, primarily due to disputed issues of material fact on most claims but sufficient evidence or legal bars on the granted motions.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

The case involved a dispute between the Community of Christ church entities, which own federal registrations and common law rights in trademarks including 'RLDS,' 'REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS,' and related design marks, and the Devon Park Restoration Branch, a separate church group using those marks on signage, a website, literature, seals, and certificates without authorization. Plaintiffs sued for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125 after defendants refused to cease use. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding they demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits because the marks were valid, not abandoned through nonuse or uncontrolled licensing, and defendants' unauthorized use created a likelihood of confusion. It also found irreparable harm, that the balance of equities favored plaintiffs, and that the public interest supported relief, ordering defendants to stop using the marks, alter their sign and website, cover displays, notify publishers, and file compliance affidavits while posting a $1,000 bond.

business & regulatory

In Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., plaintiff Jeremy Braden sued Wal-Mart and several of its officers and committee members, alleging that they breached fiduciary duties under ERISA by selecting mutual fund options for the company's large 401(k) plan that charged excessive fees, failing to disclose material information about those fees to participants, engaging in prohibited transactions involving revenue sharing, and failing to monitor or prevent co-fiduciaries from breaching their duties, resulting in substantial losses to plan participants. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion and dismissed the case in its entirety. The core reasoning centered on the plaintiff's lack of standing for claims predating his own participation in the plan, failure to plausibly allege that the revenue-sharing arrangements fell outside ERISA exemptions, and insufficient pleading of breaches regarding mandatory disclosures or monitoring duties.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Movant Cardenas-Celestino, who pleaded guilty to a federal drug conspiracy charge and was sentenced to 135 months in prison under a plea agreement that waived most rights to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction or sentence, except for a direct appeal of the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a residence search. He filed a § 2255 motion renewing his challenge to the suppression ruling and arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 3231 was never validly enacted, depriving the court of jurisdiction. The court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing or certificate of appealability, holding that the claims were barred by the valid plea waiver and that the suppression issue had already been litigated on direct appeal while the jurisdictional claim was frivolous under the enrolled bill rule.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves African-American sheet metal workers who were or are members of Local 2, a union responsible for referring workers to contractors under a collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiffs alleged that the union's out-of-work list and referral procedures resulted in discriminatory treatment and disparate impact based on race, in violation of federal law. The court granted the union's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, while denying the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The decision addressed the parties, the referral system allowing solicitation, requests, and referrals, the impact of an expired consent decree, and the application of statutes of limitations to the claims. Core reasoning focused on whether the evidence supported intentional discrimination or disparate impact under the relevant legal standards for union referral practices.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Takkallapalli v. Chertoff, U.S. citizen Seana Takkallapalli filed an I-130 petition for her husband, Dr. Srinu Takkallapalli, who then submitted an I-485 application for adjustment of status to permanent resident; both remained unadjudicated years after an interview because the FBI had not completed a required name-based security background check. The plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS to decide the filings within sixty days, while the government moved for summary judgment on grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction and that any delay involved discretionary national-security functions. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion, granted the government's cross-motion, and dismissed the mandamus claim without prejudice. It held that the defendants had no clear nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate the applications immediately while awaiting the FBI check, that the delay resulted from post-9/11 backlogs rather than inaction, and that neither the APA nor the Mandamus Act provided a basis for judicial intervention in these circumstances.

immigrationprocedure

In Andron v. Gonzales, a Romanian citizen who entered the U.S. as a refugee in 1979 applied for naturalization in 2004, passed his required tests after an interview in May 2005, but faced delays because the FBI had not completed his name check background investigation. The plaintiff sued under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), seeking a court hearing on his application or an order of mandamus due to the passage of more than 120 days since his examination. The court held that it had subject matter jurisdiction because the statutory 120-day period begins at the applicant's initial examination interview rather than upon completion of all background checks, and it granted summary judgment in part to the plaintiff while denying the government's motion to dismiss. Instead of deciding the naturalization petition itself, the court remanded the matter to USCIS with instructions to adjudicate it within 60 days after receiving the completed FBI background check.

immigrationfederal powerprocedure

In Green v. Dillard's, Inc., African-American plaintiffs Rodney and Charlan Green sued the retailer under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 after a sales clerk uttered a racial epithet while the Greens were shopping at a Dillard's store in Kansas City, Missouri, claiming the incident interfered with their right to make and enforce contracts. The Greens had completed a purchase of a handbag and accessories with assistance from one clerk but left without buying a watch after the epithet and declined a later offer to return. The district court granted Dillard's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact. The core reasoning was that the Greens failed to show Dillard's unlawfully interfered with their contract rights, as the completed sale occurred without hindrance and the plaintiffs voluntarily abandoned further purchases.

civil rights

This case involves the EEOC suing UMB Bank for allegedly discriminating against a quadriplegic job applicant in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to hire him for a customer service representative position. The EEOC moved for partial summary judgment on whether it had fulfilled its statutory duty under Title VII to make a good faith effort to conciliate the charge before filing suit. The court denied the motion and stayed the case for sixty days, finding that the EEOC had not acted reasonably because it refused the bank's multiple requests for a conciliation meeting to discuss the core issue of the applicant's ability to perform the job's essential functions, instead relying solely on the applicant's own assertion and presenting a large non-negotiable settlement demand.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a dispute over whether Naturopathic Laboratories' Joint-Ritis topical pain relief products infringed Dermal Research Laboratories' U.S. Patent No. 5,888,984, which covers a pharmaceutical composition using complex carbohydrates like chondroitin sulfate combined with essential oils to penetrate the skin and provide independent pain relief. After a jury found infringement, willful infringement, and awarded damages of over $1.9 million, Naturopathic moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court granted the motion, holding that Dermal failed to present legally sufficient evidence that the chondroitin sulfate in the accused products was present in a pharmacologically effective amount and acted independently to relieve pain, as required by the court's construction of the patent claim. Instead, the evidence only showed absorption through the skin or pain relief from combinations with other ingredients like glucosamine, which was insufficient to support the verdict.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Michael Van Deelen sued the City of Kansas City after being terminated from his position as a Systems Analyst for allegedly violating the city's residency policy by maintaining his family home outside the city limits. The court granted the Human Resources Board's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding it is not a separate entity from the city, granted the city defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, denied Van Deelen's motion for summary judgment, and found the HR Board defendants' motion moot. The decision rested on analysis of the city's ordinances and policies regarding residency requirements and the procedures followed in Van Deelen's suspension and termination, including whether a waiver was possible and if due process was provided.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved a defendant charged with multiple counts of attempting to entice minors into sexual activity, transfer obscene material to minors, and interstate travel to engage in sexual acts with minors, based on online communications in which he believed he was interacting with a mother and her young daughters but was actually communicating with an undercover officer. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that conviction was legally impossible because no actual minor was involved. The court denied the motion to dismiss, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. It held that the statutes criminalize such attempts based on the defendant's specific intent and substantial steps toward the offense, that factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt crimes, and that Congress intended the laws to apply even when an undercover officer poses as a minor.

criminal law

The case involved adult-oriented businesses challenging Missouri Revised Statutes Sections 226.531 and 573.510, which restrict exterior advertising signs for adult cabarets and sexually-oriented businesses located within one mile of state highways, limiting them to two signs with specified content and size. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, arguing the law violated their First Amendment free speech rights and equal protection guarantees. The court denied the motions, holding that the statute regulates commercial speech in a content-neutral manner focused on time, place, and manner to address secondary effects like crime and property deterioration, satisfies the Central Hudson test for governmental interests, is narrowly tailored, and does not violate equal protection as the classification is rationally related to legitimate state interests.

free speechbusiness & regulatorycivil rights

The case involved plaintiff Dee Ella Lee, who defaulted on two Perkins student loans from 1978 and challenged the Department of Education's offset of her Social Security benefits starting in 2001 to collect the debts under the Treasury Offset Program. Lee argued that 31 U.S.C. § 3716 barred offsets for claims over ten years old, while Education contended that 20 U.S.C. § 1091a eliminated all statutes of limitations for student loan collection. The court granted Lee's partial summary judgment motion, ruling that Education lacked authority to offset her benefits because the claims exceeded the ten-year limit in § 3716 and enjoining future offsets, though it allowed Education to pursue other collection methods. It also held that the retroactive application of § 1091a did not violate due process, as Lee had notice of the debts and no special hardship from the extended collection period was shown.

federal powerprocedure

In Brazil v. Rickerson, plaintiff Kevin Brazil sued after being expelled from three LLCs managing Sonic Drive-In restaurants, alleging the expulsions violated the operating agreements and that compensation for his interests was insufficient. The court addressed Brazil's motion for partial summary judgment regarding interpretation of the agreements, validity of the expulsions under Article 7, and ownership percentages. It denied summary judgment on wrongful expulsion from the Jefferson City and Marshall LLCs due to unresolved factual issues about misconduct and authority, granted summary judgment that the Clinton LLC agreement provided no authority for expulsion of members, and granted summary judgment that Brazil held a 15% interest in the Jefferson City LLC requiring corresponding payment.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

Woman's Clinic sued St. John's Health System alleging that its vertical integration through exclusive contracts with payors and a business covenant restricting plaintiff physicians from investing in or operating certain facilities violated the Sherman Act and Missouri state law by inhibiting competition in the Springfield, Missouri medical market; the complaint also sought declaratory relief regarding alleged breaches of an affiliation agreement. The court granted St. John's motion for summary judgment and denied Woman's Clinic's motion for partial summary judgment. After reviewing the evidence and resolving all inferences in favor of the plaintiff, the court found no genuine issue of material fact because Woman's Clinic failed to prove that St. John's conduct offended the Rule of Reason, and declaratory relief was not appropriate. The court noted ongoing upstream competition between St. John's and Cox for payor contracts as well as downstream competition for physician referrals.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involves the United States suing NHC Health Care Corp. under the False Claims Act and related common-law theories, alleging that the nursing home submitted fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement claims because the care provided to two specific residents in 1998 was so inadequate as to render the billed services worthless. The court addressed the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that ordinary negligence or malpractice does not violate the FCA but that triable issues of fact existed on whether the level of care fell so far below required standards that the claims were false, precluding summary judgment on the fraud count.

criminal lawhealthcarebusiness & regulatory