Alan Bond Johnson

This case is a class action by current and former Solvay employees alleging ERISA violations arising from the company's conversion of its pension plan to a cash-balance formula, with the sole remaining issue on remand being whether deficiencies in the ERISA § 204(h) notice regarding early-retirement benefits constituted an egregious failure. The district court granted in part and denied in part Solvay's motion for summary judgment. It found no genuine issue of material fact that most participants received most of the required information and granted summary judgment on that statutory element of egregiousness, but it denied summary judgment on the elements of intentional failure or failure to promptly correct an unintentional failure after discovery because the record contained circumstantial evidence creating triable issues. The court applied the statutory definition of egregious failure in 29 U.S.C. § 1054(h)(6)(B) and the Rule 56 summary-judgment standards requiring a movant to show the absence of any genuine dispute of material fact.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Large v. Fremont County, five enrolled members of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes residing on the Wind River Indian Reservation sued Fremont County, its commissioners, and its clerk, alleging that the county's at-large, plurality-vote system for electing its five-member commission diluted Indian voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. After a nine-day bench trial, the court evaluated the claim by applying the Thornburg v. Gingles framework and the Senate Report factors, reviewing 2000 census data showing an approximately 20% Indian population heavily concentrated in a few communities, evidence of racially polarized voting, historical official discrimination, and socioeconomic disparities that hindered political participation. The court's core reasoning assessed whether, under the totality of circumstances, the at-large structure minimized or canceled out the ability of Indian voters to elect their preferred candidates relative to white voters.

electionscivil rights

This case involved a common law trademark infringement claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) brought by plaintiffs against defendants for unauthorized use of the fanciful mark “UNKER’S” on personal care products. The court found that the plaintiffs established their claim through stipulated facts showing approximately 18 years of prior use, a protectable mark, defendants' use in commerce, and both likelihood and instances of actual consumer confusion. Defendants raised affirmative defenses including naked licensing to contract manufacturers, failure to join necessary parties, and lack of continuous use, but the court rejected these after trial evidence showed the arrangements were standard industry contract manufacturing practices that did not abandon the mark and that the formula in question was not protectable or actually transferred. The court concluded plaintiffs met their burden on liability, leaving only damages for further proceedings.

business & regulatory

The case challenged the Bureau of Land Management's approval of a large-scale coalbed methane development project in the Powder River Basin spanning Wyoming and Montana, which authorized up to 51,000 wells along with extensive roads, pipelines, water extraction, and waste disposal. Plaintiffs argued that the environmental impact statement violated NEPA due to rushed procedures influenced by political priorities, inadequate analysis of water quality and air impacts, and failure to consider reasonable alternatives such as phased development or limits on new leasing. The court upheld the BLM's decisions and EIS, reasoning that tiering from broader to site-specific analyses was appropriate under NEPA regulations, that alternatives delaying existing leases were unreasonable given statutory requirements for timely permitting and maximum economic recovery under the Mineral Leasing Act, and that the chosen approach adequately addressed the project's scope and impacts.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In Jensen v. Solvay Chemicals, Inc., plaintiffs challenged a 2005 amendment to Solvay's defined benefit pension plan, alleging it froze benefits for older, longer-service employees, reduced accrual rates based on age, and provided inadequate notice in violation of ERISA and the ADEA. After the plan administrator denied their claims, plaintiffs filed suit seeking equitable relief and moved for discovery beyond the administrative record. A magistrate judge denied the motion, limiting discovery under ERISA precedent. The district court reversed that order, holding that the claims arose under ERISA § 502(a)(3) rather than § 502(a)(1)(B), so traditional federal discovery rules applied without the administrative-record restriction, and the ADEA claims did not alter that analysis.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In Jensen v. Solvay Chemicals, Inc., plaintiffs alleged that a 2005 amendment to their employer's defined benefit pension plan froze benefits for older employees, violated ERISA accrual and nonforfeitability rules, provided inadequate notice of changes, and reduced benefit accrual rates based on age. Defendants moved to dismiss the ERISA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the plan. The court denied the motion, holding that the claims asserted statutory violations rather than claims for benefits, and that ERISA does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies for such statutory claims where plan administrators lack relevant expertise and exhaustion would serve no meaningful purpose. The decision relied on Tenth Circuit precedent excusing exhaustion in similar statutory ERISA enforcement actions.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved claims arising from a 2001 crash of a Falcon 900 corporate jet in Wyoming that damaged only the aircraft itself, with plaintiffs (owners and insurers) asserting strict product liability and negligence against manufacturers Dassault Aviation, Dassault Falcon Jet Corp., and SNECMA, plus a declaratory relief claim seeking interpretation of the 1992 purchase agreement to allow recovery of economic losses. The court granted SNECMA's motion to dismiss, the Dassault defendants' motions for partial summary judgment and to dismiss the declaratory claim, and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on declaratory relief. Core reasoning was that Wyoming's economic loss rule bars tort recovery for purely economic damages to the product absent personal injury or other property damage, the expired contract's warranty disclaimer excluded such losses, and declaratory relief was unnecessary and improper where breach claims were already pending in the action.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Christopher Kegler, who had a Wyoming misdemeanor domestic violence conviction that triggered a federal firearms prohibition under the Lautenberg Amendment (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)), seeking a declaratory judgment that his subsequent state-law expungement under Wyo. Stat. § 7-13-1501 removed the disability and allowed him to possess firearms. The defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The court granted dismissal, holding that Kegler lacked standing because he had not shown an injury in fact, as he faced no imminent or threatened prosecution under the federal statute. The opinion further noted that the GCA provisions cited did not create a federal cause of action or confer jurisdiction, and the Declaratory Judgment Act does not extend federal court authority.

gunscriminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case concerns plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and expenses for their counsel's post-judgment monitoring of defendants' compliance with a Remedial Plan governing jail policies, which had been approved by the court in February 2005 and included a compliance monitor. The court granted the motion, awarding $16,200.50 in fees (96 hours at $135 per hour with a 25% enhancement) plus $2,105.28 in travel expenses. The court reasoned that the PLRA permits fees for reasonable monitoring activities to ensure compliance, the prior settlement release did not waive claims for future court-ordered fees, counsel's specialized expertise justified the travel costs rather than delegating to local counsel, and an enhancement was appropriate given the low PLRA rates and exceptional results achieved.

civil rightsprocedurecriminal law

The case concerned whether the Protection & Advocacy System, Inc. (P&A), Wyoming's designated protection and advocacy organization for individuals with disabilities, could access patient records at the Wyoming State Hospital and Wyoming State Training School under the PAIMI Act, DD Act, and PAIR Act, despite objections based on confidentiality rules in HIPAA and the Medicaid Act. The court held that neither HIPAA nor the Medicaid Act prohibits such access when disclosure is required by a P&A act and P&A complies with all statutory requirements. The reasoning centered on the explicit access authority granted by the P&A statutes to investigate abuse, neglect, and rights violations, the status of the facilities as covered entities, and the parties' negotiated access agreement that incorporates all applicable privacy safeguards. The court approved the agreement as consistent with current law and resolved the dispute over record access in P&A's favor.

civil rightshealthcarefederal power

The case concerned challenges by Wyoming and other plaintiffs to a 1994 federal rule under the Endangered Species Act authorizing the reintroduction of gray wolves as an experimental, non-essential population into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho, following decades of the species' near-extinction due to human activity and prior ESA listings. The court reviewed claims that the rule improperly altered state sovereignty over wildlife management and violated NEPA requirements for environmental review. It held that the federal action was authorized by ESA Section 10(j) and that any conflict with state authority was resolved by the Commerce Clause, ESA, and Supremacy Clause, which preempt contrary state regulation of listed species.

environmentfederal power

This 1986 class action lawsuit by present and future inmates of the Carbon County Jail alleged ongoing violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments arising from deficiencies in medical record-keeping, staff supervision and training, delays in medical care, monitoring of psychotropic medications, and treatment of mental illness. The court considered five motions for summary judgment by the plaintiffs and the defendants' motion to terminate the 1987 Consent Decree under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court generally granted the plaintiffs' motions, finding constitutional violations in the areas of supervision/training and medical/mental health care, denied the motion to strike the fifth motion, and denied termination of paragraph 27 of the decree while directing the defendants to submit a proposed remedial plan within 30 days for court approval after plaintiffs' comments.

criminal lawcivil rightshealthcare

This case involves a motion by plaintiff inmates in a class action to hold county defendants in contempt for allegedly violating a 1987 consent decree's requirements on adequate psychiatric care, accurate medical records, and proper medication dispensing in a correctional facility, which plaintiffs claim amounts to systemic Eighth Amendment violations. The court addressed defendants' refusal to produce inmate medical records or allow depositions of health care providers without individual signed releases from the inmates. The court granted the discovery motion, ruling that class counsel may access the records and depose providers without releases. It reasoned that precedents in institutional class actions establish class counsel's right to such information to investigate patterns of medical mistreatment, and that individual privacy interests in medical confidentiality must yield to the federal interest in enforcing civil rights, with the information to remain confidential except as needed for court proceedings.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a class action lawsuit brought by inmates against Carbon County, Wyoming officials regarding conditions at the county jail, stemming from a 1987 Consent Decree that addressed alleged constitutional violations. The defendants moved under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to immediately terminate the decree and sought to stay discovery, while the plaintiffs requested additional discovery and an evidentiary hearing to demonstrate ongoing violations. The court reserved ruling on termination of the decree, denied the motion to stay discovery, granted the plaintiffs' requests for further discovery and a new schedule, and set deadlines leading to a nonjury trial in August 2004. It reasoned that the PLRA requires the court to determine whether there are current and ongoing constitutional violations based on an adequate record, and that plaintiffs must have the opportunity to present evidence of present conditions through discovery and a hearing, consistent with precedents like Hadix v. Johnson.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal power

The case concerned whether Wyoming's Coal Transportation Tax, an excise tax on the commercial movement of coal by rail or truck, violated the federal Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act (4-R Act) by discriminating against interstate railroads. Plaintiffs Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway and Union Pacific Railroad sought summary judgment declaring the tax invalid and enjoining its assessment and collection. The court granted the motion, finding that the tax resulted in discriminatory taxation of the railroads in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 11501. The core reasoning was that although the tax applied on its face to all commercial transporters of coal, its structure—based on ton-miles or a minimum per-carload amount, whichever is higher—imposed a vastly disproportionate burden on the high-volume rail carriers compared to truck operators, as shown by the tax calculations for the 2001 tax year.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In this case, Contact Communications sued Qwest Corporation for breach of two interconnection agreements approved by the Wyoming Public Service Commission under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, claiming Qwest failed to pay reciprocal compensation for calls to internet service providers. The plaintiff invoked federal diversity jurisdiction and sought money damages without first presenting the claims to the state commission or FCC. Qwest moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), contending the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, reasoning that the TCA's statutory scheme requires initial interpretation and enforcement of such agreements by state commissions, limiting federal courts to appellate review of those decisions.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The plaintiff sued First USA Bank, N.A., alleging that the bank erroneously reported a delinquent credit card account in her name that she had never opened or authorized, resulting in loan denials and damage to her credit. Her amended complaint asserted state-law claims for libel, interference with prospective advantage, and invasion of privacy, along with a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court granted the bank's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denied the plaintiff's motion to remand to state court. It held that 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F) expressly preempts all state causes of action relating to the responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies, that the FCRA limits enforcement of such provisions to designated federal and state officials rather than private plaintiffs, and that the remand request was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

business & regulatoryfederal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

Wyoming Sawmills sued the U.S. Forest Service over its Historic Preservation Plan (HPP) for the Medicine Wheel National Historic Landmark in Wyoming's Big Horn National Forest, which was developed through consultations with tribes and other parties to protect the site's cultural and archaeological value while limiting activities such as logging and motorized access. The company claimed the HPP and related amendments violated statutes including NEPA and the National Forest Management Act by failing to consider adequate alternatives, improperly restricting timber harvesting, and excluding certain interests from the process. The court partially granted the Forest Service's motion to dismiss, holding that Sawmills lacked standing to pursue its NEPA claims and ruling for the agency on the merits of the remaining challenges after finding the plan consistent with applicable law and deferring to the agency's reasonable determinations on issues like the scope of suitable logging areas.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

In Hansen v. United States, the petitioner, who had pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess and distribute methamphetamine and received a 121-month sentence, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or correct his sentence. He argued that his due process rights were violated by a sentencing disparity with his co-defendant based on inconsistent drug quantities and sought to amend the motion to claim that Apprendi v. New Jersey required the drug type and quantity to be treated as elements of the offense rather than sentencing factors. The court denied the motion, holding that claims of disparate sentences among co-defendants are generally not cognizable in § 2255 proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances or a showing of prejudice from procedural default on direct appeal, and that Apprendi does not apply retroactively on collateral review, particularly where the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum. The court also denied related motions to expand the record or add new claims filed after the one-year limitations period.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a civil forfeiture action in which the United States seized funds from an account connected to National Fuels Corporation, based on probable cause that the money constituted proceeds of wire fraud, mail fraud, and related offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 981. The government moved to stay the civil proceedings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g) to prevent civil discovery from interfering with its ongoing criminal investigation, and the court initially granted the stay. Claimants requested reconsideration, citing due process concerns and lack of opportunity to respond, but the court denied the motion. The court reasoned that allowing civil discovery posed a substantial risk of prejudicing the criminal case, the stay was limited rather than indefinite, and it would continue monitoring the matter to ensure timely resolution.

criminal lawprocedureproperty