Cindy K. Jorgenson

This case involved defendants in a federal criminal prosecution who moved to suppress evidence seized after Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers stopped their vehicle on a highway known for smuggling activity. The magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing, assessed witness credibility including expert testimony on vehicle visibility and weight, and recommended granting the motion on the ground that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop. The district judge adopted the report and recommendation in full after no objections were filed. The core reasoning was that the officers' observations of a fuzzy outline in a tinted vehicle registered out of state were insufficient to meet Fourth Amendment standards, and the defendants had yielded to the show of authority rather than fleeing.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case arose from a 2005 joint venture agreement between Kaliroy Produce Co., Pacific Tomato Growers (PTG), and a Mexican entity to grow and sell tomatoes, which led to arbitration claims for breach after alleged defaults. An ICC arbitral tribunal issued an award in 2009 requiring net payments among the parties, prompting Kaliroy and the Mexican entity to move to vacate the award under the Federal Arbitration Act while PTG sought confirmation. The district court determined that the New York Convention governed because of the foreign party and non-domestic nature of the award, establishing jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 203. The court applied the Convention's limited grounds for vacatur, emphasizing that review does not extend to re-weighing evidence or second-guessing the tribunal's factual findings or contract interpretations under Arizona law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute in which Ventana Medical Systems sued St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company after St. Paul denied coverage and refused to defend or indemnify Ventana in connection with allegations arising from press releases and website postings about product launches. Ventana moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that St. Paul had breached its duties under the policies by failing to investigate adequately, while St. Paul cross-moved for summary judgment. The district court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, addressing Ventana's objections regarding the denial letter, the duty to investigate, and policy interpretation. The court adopted the magistrate's findings, denied Ventana's motion and requests for judicial notice, granted St. Paul's summary judgment motion, and awarded attorney fees to St. Paul after compliance with local rules.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Cumis Insurance Society's subrogation claims against Merrick Bank for losses paid to credit unions after a data security breach at CardSystems Solutions, a processor sponsored by Merrick in the Visa network. Merrick moved for partial summary judgment, contending that releases executed by issuing banks as part of Visa's Optional Alternative Compliance Process barred further recovery. The court reviewed extensive factual background on the breach, the OACP claim process, the specific terms of the Issuer Certifications and releases, the amounts paid by Visa, and the credit unions' participation, while addressing objections to the evidence and noting that Arizona law governed the contractual issues.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

Plaintiffs submitted a FOIA request to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in August 2008 seeking certain records; after delays in acknowledgment and processing, they filed suit in February 2009, at which point the agency had already begun responding and ultimately provided all requested documents. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report recommending denial of plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, grant of the government's cross-motion, and dismissal with prejudice, holding that the claims were moot because the agency had fulfilled its FOIA production obligation. The court further found plaintiffs ineligible for attorney fees, as they obtained no judicial order compelling relief and the agency did not voluntarily alter its position due to the lawsuit, and rejected allegations of an agency pattern or practice of untimely responses given the volume of requests handled under a first-in-first-out system.

procedurehealthcare

In Levy v. Duncan, a federal inmate serving sentences for drug-related convictions filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons' policy that bars prisoners from receiving good-time credit reductions more than once for completing the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP). The petitioner had previously received such credit in 1996 and was denied eligibility for another reduction after later participation. The magistrate judge found the petition ripe for review, concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) grants the BOP discretion to narrow eligibility for the credit, and determined the categorical exclusion of repeat beneficiaries is not arbitrary and capricious because it is justified by a desire to deter recidivism. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full and denied the petition on the merits.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved former employees of First Magnus Financial Corp. who were terminated without 60 days' notice during the company's financial collapse and bankruptcy filing; they brought a class action adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court under the WARN Act seeking damages, class certification, and administrative priority status for their claims, while also attempting to pursue related claims against a non-debtor affiliate. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders dismissing the adversary proceeding under Rule 41(b), denying class certification, denying administrative expense priority for the WARN Act claims, and dismissing the non-debtor entity for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the bankruptcy court properly managed its docket and that the claims against the non-debtor lacked a sufficient jurisdictional nexus, with the overall appeal rendered moot by the dismissal of the adversary proceeding and the confirmation of reorganization plans in related bankruptcy cases. Appellants' opportunity to participate in the confirmed plans further supported the mootness finding.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Whitaker v. Pima County, plaintiff Christy Whitaker sued Pima County deputy sheriffs after they fatally shot her son Eric during an encounter involving a stolen pickup truck. Eric Whitaker had fled from officers, rammed a deputy's vehicle, and was attempting to escape when the deputies fired, perceiving an ongoing threat from the moving vehicle. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment excessive force claims. It reasoned that the use of deadly force was reasonable given the driver's reckless actions, refusal to surrender, and the vehicle's potential as a deadly weapon, entitling the officers to qualified immunity.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved the Center for Biological Diversity suing the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, and the Small Business Administration over their provision of mortgage insurance, loan guarantees, and loans for development in Sierra Vista, Arizona, without consulting the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act or performing environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act on potential effects to the endangered Huachuca Water Umbel and Southwest Willow Flycatcher in the San Pedro River watershed. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants. It reasoned that the agencies' financial assistance programs were too attenuated from actual development impacts on the water table and species habitat to constitute agency action under the ESA or major federal action under NEPA, since the agencies exercised no control over where or how the guaranteed loans were used.

environment

The case involves plaintiffs suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for alleged negligence by the Farm Service Agency in handling approvals and disbursements of farm loans and AMTA payments, which plaintiffs claim caused them to lose crop seasons due to delays in funding for herbicide treatment and alfalfa planting. The court addressed the applicability of Arizona's Good Samaritan Doctrine to economic harms in a lending context and the scope of the misrepresentation exception under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). It granted the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing claims based on misrepresentations, unapproved loans, or other grounds, while denying dismissal as to claims for negligent delay in timely distributing already-approved funds because they involved a separate duty to perform ministerial tasks rather than merely communicating information. The core reasoning relied on Supreme Court precedents distinguishing Neustadt from Block to separate barred misrepresentation claims from actionable negligence.

federal powerbusiness & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a dispute over uninsured motorist coverage where a Spanish-speaking insured signed an English-only waiver form rejecting such coverage through American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin, leading to a denied claim after a fatal accident involving his mother-in-law. The plaintiff sued the insurer along with an insurance agent and adjuster, alleging bad faith and related claims, prompting the defendants to remove the action to federal court on diversity grounds and argue that the individual defendants were fraudulently joined. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that there was no fraudulent joinder because Arizona law left open the possibility of a viable bad faith claim against the non-diverse individual defendants. The decision rested on the strict presumption against removal jurisdiction and the requirement that any doubt about the viability of claims against resident defendants be resolved in favor of remand to state court.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerns Christopher Centuori's claims against Experian under the Fair Credit Reporting Act after the Pima County Public Defender obtained his credit report to challenge his credibility as a witness in a state criminal prosecution for child molestation. Experian moved for summary judgment on the counts alleging willful and negligent violations, contending there was no evidence it failed to properly oversee the provision of credit data through an intermediary. The court denied the motion, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Experian adequately screened the Public Defender's application for direct internet access to its database and complied with FCRA requirements before granting that access.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. sued Steve Streeter for copyright infringement, alleging that he used an online media distribution system to reproduce and distribute two copyrighted films without permission. After Streeter failed to answer the complaint following proper personal service, the court entered default and granted the plaintiff's motion for default judgment. The court applied the Eitel factors, took the complaint's factual allegations as true, and found no procedural bars under Rule 55 or the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act. It awarded $6,000 in statutory damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and a permanent injunction barring further infringement of the films or any other Fox-owned works, plus an order to destroy unauthorized copies.

propertyprocedure

In Friend v. Time Manufacturing Co., plaintiff Armando Friend, a cable technician, sued the manufacturer of a Versalift Aerial Platform Lift after the bucket rose uncontrollably into power lines, causing him severe electrical burns and other injuries; he claimed a product defect caused the malfunction. The defendant moved to strike plaintiff's expert witness Charles Rasnic, arguing his opinions on the equipment failure were unreliable under Daubert standards and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court denied the motion, holding that the expert's use of failure tree analysis, combined with testing, inspections, witness statements, and his engineering experience, satisfied the requirements of sufficient facts, reliable methods, and reliable application to the case. The decision emphasized that challenges to the expert's conclusions went to weight rather than admissibility, and certainty is not required for expert opinions in such matters.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a labor dispute between Graham County Electric Cooperative and the union representing employee Mark Curley over a 30-day unpaid suspension imposed after Curley's DUI led to suspension of his commercial driver's license; the union grieved the suspension as unjust under the collective bargaining agreement and sought arbitration. An arbitrator reduced the suspension to one week and awarded backpay, determining that the company policy's penalty was excessive as applied. The district court denied the Cooperative's motion for summary judgment and granted the Union's cross-motion, confirming the arbitration award and dismissing the case. The court reasoned that review of labor arbitration decisions is highly deferential, and the arbitrator acted within his authority by construing and applying the CBA without altering its terms.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a challenge by Forest Guardians to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) biological opinion concluding that continued livestock grazing on certain allotments would not jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered spikedace and loach minnow under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, thereby upholding the FWS's no-jeopardy determination. The court reasoned that the FWS had considered the relevant factors based on the best available scientific data in the administrative record, including mitigation measures such as reduced cattle numbers and seasonal restrictions, and had articulated a rational connection between those facts and its conclusion that the action was not likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival and recovery. The decision emphasized deference to the agency's scientific expertise under the Administrative Procedure Act, finding no clear error of judgment even in light of ongoing habitat degradation and Ninth Circuit precedent on ESA standards.

environment

This case involves the IRS's effort to enforce a summons issued to Samuel Milligan, as agent for Sundance Properties, LTD., requiring him to produce corporate documents and testify regarding tax liabilities for 2000 and 2001 uncovered during an investigation into offshore credit card use. The court granted the government's petition to enforce the summons, ordering Milligan to comply by producing the requested records and authenticating them. The IRS satisfied the Powell factors for summons enforcement through an agent's affidavit, and the burden shifted to Milligan, who failed to show the documents were personal rather than corporate or that Sundance was a sole-employee corporation exempt from Braswell v. United States. Evidence indicated Milligan's wife was also associated with the entity through credit card use and signatory authority, rendering Fifth Amendment claims inapplicable to corporate records.

taxesfederal powercriminal law

This case involves a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), where plaintiff Christopher Centuori alleges that the Pima County Public Defender’s Office willfully violated the statute by obtaining and using his credit report without a permissible purpose during a criminal trial in which he testified as a witness. The plaintiff seeks to compel discovery responses from the defendants regarding their reasons for accessing the reports, which the defendants have withheld on attorney-client privilege and work-product grounds. The court granted the motion to compel, holding that the defendants waived both privileges through prior voluntary disclosures of their theory and purpose for obtaining the reports, including statements made during the criminal trial and in communications with the credit reporting agency. The reasoning relies on federal common law principles that voluntary disclosure of privileged information to third parties waives protection as to all related communications on the same subject, and the court found no evidence that the client had objected to those disclosures.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act alleging that defendant Merchants Information Solutions (MIS) and others improperly furnished the plaintiff's credit reports to the Pima County Public Defender’s Office without a permissible purpose. The plaintiff filed suit against Experian and other parties on January 8, 2004, but did not name MIS until filing an amended complaint on January 26, 2004, after discovering documents showing MIS's role. The court denied MIS's motion for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds, holding that the amended complaint relates back to the original filing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(3) because the plaintiff’s omission of MIS resulted from a mistake concerning the identity of the proper defendant.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the IRS seeking court enforcement of a subpoena issued to Samuel Milligan, president of Econometric Consultants, Inc., for testimony and production of corporate books and records after he appeared but failed to produce the documents. The court ordered Milligan to fully comply with the summons by producing the requested documents and authenticating them by a set date, while denying his requests for an alternate custodian of records, an in camera hearing, and a stay pending appeal. The IRS met its prima facie burden under the Powell factors for summons enforcement via affidavit, and Milligan conceded those requirements were satisfied; his Fifth Amendment challenges were rejected because the corporation had another director besides the husband-and-wife officers, preventing application of any Braswell exception, and Hubbell did not extend to this collective-entity context. The court also found no reasonable probability of success on the merits or irreparable injury to support a stay.

taxescriminal lawfederal power