Gulf Restoration Network brought a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act against Hancock County Development for conducting construction activities on its property without required permits, including stormwater discharges and dredging and filling wetlands. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on both standing and liability. It found that the wetlands were waters of the United States under the Rapanos tests because they bordered tributaries connected to navigable waters and had a significant nexus to those waters. The evidence showed Hancock's unpermitted discharges violated CWA Sections 402 and 404, and the plaintiff established standing through its members' use of nearby properties affected by the activities.
The case involves plaintiff John Aaron Vanderburg, who sued defendant Ryan Teel, an officer at the Harrison County Adult Detention Center, alleging excessive force during an incident shortly after Vanderburg's 2005 arrest, along with failure to provide medical care and various conspiracies under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985, and 1986. Teel moved for summary judgment, qualified immunity, dismissal for failure to state a claim, and to strike certain exhibits. The court dismissed the Section 1985 and 1986 claims without prejudice because the complaint did not allege the required class-based animus or other elements for those statutes, granted summary judgment on the Section 1983 conspiracy-to-deny-access-to-courts claim for lack of evidence, and denied the remaining motions, including those seeking qualified immunity on the excessive force claim, allowing those issues to proceed to trial based on disputed facts viewed in the plaintiff's favor.
This case involves Louisiana residents suing State Farm for denying coverage under their homeowner's insurance policy for damage to their Mississippi vacation home from Hurricane Katrina, after the company paid the limits of a separate flood policy. The plaintiffs asserted claims including bad faith denial, breach of contract, misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Mississippi Valued Property Statute, along with requests for declaratory relief, reformation, and specific performance. The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the claims for declaratory judgment on the water exclusion and hurricane deductible, misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, the Valued Property Statute, indemnity, unjust enrichment, reformation, and specific performance. It denied the motion as to the remaining claims. The court reasoned that there was no genuine issue of material fact supporting the dismissed claims under the summary judgment standard, citing lack of detrimental reliance, absence of a fiduciary duty, adequate remedies at law, and time bars or lack of merit for certain tort claims.
This case arose from a 2005 fatal car accident on Interstate 10 involving a tractor-trailer driven by an employee of Logistics Express (Logex), after which Trimac purchased Logex's assets in 2007 under an agreement governed by California law. Plaintiff Mujid Abdul sued Trimac as a successor, but Trimac moved for summary judgment arguing it had not assumed Logex's tort liabilities. The court granted the motion, holding that the Asset Purchase Agreement did not list pre-existing tort liabilities among the assumed liabilities and that none of the five California exceptions to the general rule of non-liability for asset purchasers applied. Specifically, there was no express or implied assumption, merger, mere continuation (due to lack of shared officers or inadequate consideration), fraud, or products-liability exception. The claims against Trimac were dismissed with prejudice.
In this case, plaintiff Vidrine obtained a home equity line of credit from defendant AGFS secured by property in Hancock County; after he failed to maintain homeowners insurance, AGFS force-placed coverage through defendant Balboa. When Hurricane Katrina destroyed the home, Vidrine sued both companies, alleging AGFS should have purchased more adequate insurance and that Balboa improperly adjusted the claim by attributing too much damage to water rather than wind. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the broad arbitration clause in the HELOC agreement, which covers claims against third-party insurers like Balboa and expressly includes disputes over arbitrability and the agreement's validity. The court granted the motion and stayed the case, holding that the agreement clearly and unmistakably delegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, so those issues and the underlying claims must be resolved in arbitration.
The case involved foreign liquidators appointed in a Nevis winding-up proceeding for an insurance company who filed a Chapter 15 case in the US and then an adversary proceeding seeking to recover over $313 million in assets allegedly fraudulently transferred to US-located entities. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the adversary proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that 11 U.S.C. §§ 1521(a)(7) and 1523 prohibit foreign representatives from bringing avoidance actions in a Chapter 15 proceeding without first commencing a Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 case, whether the claims arise under US or foreign law. The reasoning relied on the plain language excluding specified avoidance provisions from Chapter 15 relief, the requirement in § 1523 that such actions occur only in full bankruptcy cases, and legislative history indicating Congress's intent for courts to address choice-of-law questions in those proceedings.