Nancy Dell Freudenthal

In this case, plaintiff Jane Versteeg sued debt collector BD&N and its managing attorney Michael Bennett for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging unauthorized automated calls to her cell phone without disclosure of identity. The defendants did not respond to the motion for partial summary judgment, leaving the facts undisputed. The court granted the motion, finding violations based on the uncontested facts that calls were made without consent using auto-dialing and pre-recorded messages, and holding Bennett personally liable due to his direct involvement and position in the firm.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a challenge by state snowmobile associations to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2009 revised critical habitat designation for the Canada lynx under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), along with claims under NEPA and the APA, regarding lands in Washington, Montana, Wyoming, and other areas. The associations argued that the designation improperly included lands lacking required physical and biological features, relied on inadequate economic analysis, and failed to properly weigh exclusions under ESA Section 4(b)(2), particularly for Washington lands managed under the Lynx Conservation Assessment Strategy (LCAS). The court found the ESA challenge meritorious in part, concluding that the Service failed to consider the full economic impacts, which undermined the Secretary's exclusion decision. It therefore enjoined the 2009 designation only as to certain U.S. Forest Service lands in Washington State currently managed under the LCAS, pending further review and a proper exclusion determination consistent with the ESA.

environment

This case involved a claim by plaintiff Pamela Goertz for long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed employee benefit plan insured by defendant Prudential Insurance Company of America. Goertz stopped working in March 2006 due to medical issues, filed a claim in June 2006 that was denied by Prudential, exhausted administrative appeals by April 2007, and filed suit in October 2009. The court granted summary judgment to Prudential, holding the claim time-barred under the plan's three-year contractual limitations period measured from when proof of claim was required. The court reasoned that the limitations period began with Prudential's initial denial of benefits, that Goertz had more than three years (including over 29 months after exhausting appeals) to file suit, and that no facts supported equitable tolling because the period was not unreasonably short and the insurer had not delayed the process.

labor & employmentprocedurehealthcare