This case is a shareholder derivative action in which a plaintiff alleged that directors and officers of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries breached fiduciary duties, were unjustly enriched, and engaged in gross mismanagement. The court evaluated motions to dismiss based on the plaintiff's failure to make a pre-suit demand on the board under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1 and Delaware law standards for demand futility, including whether a majority of directors faced a substantial likelihood of personal liability. Although the plaintiff did not allege particularized facts excusing demand as to all directors, the court granted the motions in part and stayed the entire derivative suit pending resolution of related securities litigation to promote judicial efficiency.
This case involved a class of foreign religious workers holding special immigrant visas who challenged a USCIS policy barring them from concurrently filing Form I-485 applications for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status until their employers' Form I-360 visa petitions were approved, a restriction not applied to other employment-based immigrant categories. Plaintiffs claimed the policy substantially burdened their religious exercise in violation of RFRA, discriminated on the basis of religion, and infringed the First Amendment, Due Process, and Equal Protection. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that the policy imposed no substantial burden under RFRA because any resulting detention, deportation, or penalties arose from visa expiration rather than religious practice, and that the policy satisfied rational basis review under Equal Protection given the broad deference afforded immigration regulations and the government's interest in fraud prevention.
This qui tam case involved relators alleging that CDI and related defendants violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, Stark Act, and False Claims Act by entering into lease and joint venture arrangements with physician groups, funneling money to induce referrals of Medicare and other government-insured patients, providing free or discounted services, and failing to follow billing rules such as obtaining prior written orders. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6). It allowed the AKS and FCA claims based on the leasing arrangements to proceed but dismissed the claims involving free and discounted services, the claim against MSCPA, the FCA claim for lack of prior written orders, and the Stark Act claim, with leave to amend most dismissed claims except the Stark Act facility-leasing theory, which failed as a matter of law because the physicians billed the government directly.
This case involves an EEOC lawsuit under Title VII against Fry's Electronics for alleged discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices affecting two individuals, Ka Lam and America Rios. Lam, who had filed an EEOC charge, was allowed to intervene, but Rios, who had not filed her own charge, moved to intervene as well. The court denied Rios' motion, holding that she lacked an unconditional statutory right to intervene because she had not exhausted administrative remedies by filing a timely EEOC charge. The court further reasoned that the single filing rule did not excuse her failure to file, as her hostile work environment claim was not nearly identical to Lam's retaliation claim and thus did not provide the employer with adequate notice or conciliation opportunity.
This case involved a dispute over the proceeds of a life insurance policy on the life of Elizabeth Michelman, originally taken out by her parents Irwin and Gail Michelman while they were married. After their 2001 divorce, which did not address the policy, Gail changed the beneficiary designation in 2002 to remove Irwin and name their other daughter. Irwin brought breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims asserting rights to the proceeds based on an alleged agreement and his status as a co-owner or beneficiary. The court granted summary judgment to Gail, dismissing Irwin's claims and declaring her entitled to the proceeds. The core reasoning was that no enforceable agreement existed due to lack of evidence and the statute of frauds, Irwin's beneficiary interest was not a vested property right at divorce, post-divorce ownership interests as tenants in common did not confer rights to proceeds, and those interests expired when ownership transferred to Elizabeth at age 21.
The case involves a class action lawsuit against Intelius Inc. alleging that the company used deceptive online marketing practices to enroll consumers in subscription services without clear disclosure between 2007 and the present, raising claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), unjust enrichment, and other statutes. Intelius moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), seeking dismissal on grounds including inadequate fraud pleading, non-deceptive advertising, lack of standing for one plaintiff, inability to maintain a nationwide CPA class, failure of the unjust enrichment claim, inapplicability of the Stored Communications Act, and no basis for declaratory relief. The court reviewed the motion under the 12(b)(6) standard, taking allegations as true and considering screen shots of the webpages under the incorporation by reference doctrine after finding their authenticity sufficiently established for this stage. It concluded that the CPA claims could not be dismissed because the marketing must be evaluated as a whole in context to assess its capacity to deceive reasonable consumers, disagreeing with contrary analyses from other courts that focused narrowly on disclosure language, while addressing related issues such as standing and unjust enrichment elements.
