This case involved Mr. Rashid Abdur Rahman and his family's challenge to USCIS decisions denying H-1B visa extension petitions filed by his former employer Wiztech/Intellibytes and revoking an approved I-140 immigrant petition and related labor certification, primarily due to disputes over the employer's corporate charter status after forfeiture and revival. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants', holding that the agency's actions were not in accordance with law because they relied on an improper assessment of corporate status under Maryland law and considered factors Congress did not intend, such as post-withdrawal financial records after the alien changed jobs. The court ruled the labor certification remains valid and remanded the H-1B and I-140 matters to the agency for reconsideration.
The case involved the United States suing Rhody Dairy and its owner for violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act after FDA inspections revealed inadequate recordkeeping of animal drug treatments and improper extralabel drug use on cows, which the government alleged created insanitary conditions that could result in adulterated milk and beef entering commerce. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment on claims under 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a), 331(k), and 331(u), denied the defendants' cross-motion, and issued a permanent injunction under § 332(a) requiring the defendants to maintain detailed treatment records, follow approved drug uses, and take corrective actions as directed by the FDA. The core reasoning was that the FDCA prohibits introduction of adulterated food into interstate commerce, "insanitary conditions" under § 342(a)(4) include lack of adequate drug-use controls on food-producing animals, and the documented recordkeeping failures created a reasonable possibility of harm without needing proof of actual contamination or specific statutory recordkeeping mandates. The court also held that FDA compliance policy guides and regulations supported this interpretation and that factual disputes over record adequacy presented legal rather than factual issues.
In Schultz v. United Airlines, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that the airline breached a contract by failing to deliver his checked baggage on time after charging a baggage fee, and he sought to bring class claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment on behalf of passengers whose bags were lost, delayed, or damaged. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. It reasoned that the claims were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act because they related to airline prices and services, the Conditions of Carriage constituted the governing contract, and the plaintiff failed to identify any distinct self-imposed undertaking or implied contract that would fall within the Wolens exception to preemption.
This case involved real estate developers Glenn and Teri Davis who sought insurance coverage and defense from American States Insurance Company (a Liberty Mutual subsidiary) under a commercial general liability policy after third-party homeowners sued them for construction defects related to improperly installed windows. Davis had been listed as an additional insured on a policy held by their contractor, but the insurer denied coverage on the grounds that the work was performed by an unlicensed corporate entity that was not the named insured on the policy at the relevant time. Davis sued for declaratory relief, breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of the Consumer Protection Act, while the insurer counterclaimed for declaratory relief. The court granted summary judgment to the insurer and denied it to Davis, holding that there was no coverage because the policy did not extend to the entity that performed the work, that the insurer's investigation and denial were reasonable, and that there were no bad faith or CPA violations. The court dismissed all of Davis's claims.
Plaintiff Sicilia, a former Boeing ethics and compliance specialist, sued the company alleging unlawful retaliation under the False Claims Act, the Illinois Whistleblower Act, the Washington Law Against Discrimination, the Washington State Family Leave Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and for retaliation and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The claims arose from Sicilia's reports that proposed changes to Boeing's compliance oversight processes would violate the company's Interim Administrative Agreement with the U.S. Air Force following a prior suspension from government contracting. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that each claim failed as a matter of law. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court also denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration regarding evidentiary objections filed with the summary judgment briefing.
This case involved flight attendants who were injured by severe turbulence during a 2007 Alaska Airlines flight and sued WSI Corporation, the airline's weather information provider, alleging it failed to supply accurate SIGMET warnings about the hazardous conditions. The court converted the defendant's motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment and granted it, dismissing the claims. The core reasoning was that WSI owed no tort duty to the plaintiffs as third parties because the contract with Alaska Airlines explicitly stated the services were for the benefit of the contracting parties only, were provided "as is" with all warranties disclaimed, and placed responsibility for actions on the customer; any reliance on WSI's information was therefore unjustifiable as a matter of law.
