Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
Dismisses multiple counts of a federal indictment for legal insufficiency under the Lacey Act, indicating scrutiny of prosecutorial charging decisions, as in [7]. United States v. Berdeal ↗
In Gray v. Collection Information Bureau, Inc., plaintiff Gina Gray sued the defendant under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and accepted its July 2011 settlement offer of $1,001 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees. After acceptance, the defendant refused to pay until Gray provided her taxpayer identification number so it could issue a required IRS Form 1099 for the payment, which federal tax regulations mandate for amounts over $600; Gray declined to supply the number. The district court denied her motion to enforce the settlement agreement, reasoning that compelling payment without the TIN would force the defendant to violate federal tax law by failing to issue the form, and alternatively that the motion failed to include a required memorandum of law under local rules.
This case involves motion picture studios suing Hotfile Corp., a Panamanian company operating the file-hosting website hotfile.com, and its operator Anton Titov for copyright infringement. The plaintiffs alleged that Hotfile's business model, which pays users to upload popular files, offers premium memberships for faster downloads, and profits from high-traffic links, encourages and facilitates the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted films. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissing Count I (direct infringement) without prejudice for failing to meet pleading standards but allowing Count II (secondary infringement claims including inducement, contributory, and vicarious infringement) to proceed. The core reasoning was that the complaint sufficiently alleged Hotfile's knowledge of widespread infringement, its ability to control and prevent it through technical means, its financial incentives tied to infringing activity, and Titov's personal role in designing and implementing the business practices.
In this case, plaintiff Maria Leonor Rios alleged that defendant Bakalar & Associates, a debt collector, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, by sending a letter attempting to collect a consumer debt that had been discharged in bankruptcy. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the Bankruptcy Code precludes such FDCPA claims based on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff could proceed with her claim. It reasoned that the Seventh Circuit's decision in Randolph v. IMBS was persuasive, that the FDCPA and Bankruptcy Code are not in irreconcilable conflict, and that implied repeals of statutes are disfavored, with no indication that Congress intended the Bankruptcy Code to substitute for the FDCPA.
The case involved a Florida condominium association suing two insurance companies for breach of contract, alleging failure to provide coverage for property damage from Hurricane Wilma under policies issued in 2005. After the defendants removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) to join additional non-diverse defendants—the insurance agents and broker—on negligence claims for failing to secure adequate coverage, which would have destroyed diversity and required remand to state court. The district court denied the motion to join, applying the Hensgens factors and concluding that the timing of the request immediately after removal, before discovery, indicated a primary purpose of defeating federal jurisdiction, while also weighing the viability of the proposed claims and potential prejudice to the parties.
In this case, a cruise passenger sued Royal Caribbean after suffering serious injuries during a zip-line excursion in Jamaica operated by an independent contractor, Chukka Caribbean Adventures. The plaintiff alleged negligent selection and retention of the tour operator, failure to warn of dangers, and vicarious liability based on apparent agency. The court granted Royal Caribbean's motion for summary judgment, finding that multiple pre-cruise and on-board disclaimers clearly established the excursions as independent-contractor activities for which the cruise line bore no liability. On the negligent-selection claim, the court determined there was no evidence that Royal Caribbean failed to adequately investigate Chukka or knew of any safety issues. The apparent-agency theory likewise failed because the repeated written notices prevented any reasonable belief that Chukka was acting as Royal Caribbean's agent.
In Gomez v. Lozano, plaintiff Steven Gomez sued the City of Miami Beach under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Florida tort law, alleging that three city police officers used excessive force without provocation by grabbing, throwing to the ground, punching, and sitting on him, then arresting him after the incident. The district court granted in part and denied in part the city's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, dismissing the § 1983 municipal liability claim and the malicious prosecution claim without prejudice while allowing the assault and battery claim to proceed. The court reasoned that Florida's limited waiver of sovereign immunity under Fla. Stat. § 768.28 bars tort liability for acts committed with malice, which is an element of malicious prosecution; that the complaint failed to plausibly allege a city policy or custom causing the officers' conduct as required for § 1983 municipal liability; and that the assault and battery claim was not subject to the same immunity bar or pleading deficiency.
