Mary Helen Murguia

This case involves two 2010 FLSA collective actions (Riggio and Sanders) filed by funeral industry workers against their employers, seeking to assert claims regarding an allegedly unlawful on-call pay policy that had been deemed waived in a prior 2008 Stickle collective action or that plaintiffs had missed the opt-in deadline for. The defendants moved to dismiss both new suits, arguing that the plaintiffs were improperly relying on consent forms filed in the Stickle litigation. The court granted dismissal with prejudice in Riggio because the consent forms explicitly pertained only to the Stickle suit and did not constitute valid opt-ins under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for the new action. In Sanders, the court denied dismissal, reasoning that deficient consent forms do not automatically warrant dismissal of an FLSA action and that plaintiffs could cure the deficiency by filing new, case-specific forms.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, a prisoner confined in Arizona state prison sued Eurofresh, Inc. and various state defendants including the Arizona Department of Corrections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title I and Title II) and the Rehabilitation Act after his requests for accommodation for a walking disability were denied in connection with his participation in a prison labor program that contracted his work to the private company. The plaintiff also raised related state-law claims for violation of the Arizona Civil Rights Act and breach of contract. The court screened the second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed Count I (ADA Title I) with prejudice as to all defendants, dismissed all claims against Eurofresh, and dismissed the state-law counts, while directing the state defendants to answer the remaining federal claims under Title II and the Rehabilitation Act; the dismissals rested on failure to state a plausible claim, prior rulings, sovereign immunity considerations, and lack of required elements for third-party beneficiary status in the contract claim.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In this case, plaintiff R & L Ltd. Investments, Inc., through its owner Ms. Fay, invested approximately $250,000 in a Georgia shopping center venture arranged by defendants and later sued in Arizona federal court alleging violations of the Arizona Securities Act, consumer fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and seeking rescission along with a declaration that arbitration clauses in the related contracts were unconscionable and unenforceable. Defendants moved to compel arbitration under clauses in multiple agreements that required disputes to be resolved in Boston under JAMS rules, while plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the clauses' validity and opposed a related venue transfer request. The court applied Arizona choice-of-law rules, determined that Arizona law governed the unconscionability analysis, and found the clauses both procedurally unconscionable due to the plaintiff's limited education and the adhesive nature of the agreements and substantively unconscionable because of one-sided cost-shifting and limitations on remedies. It therefore denied the motion to compel arbitration, granted plaintiff's cross-motion declaring the clauses unenforceable, and denied the venue transfer motion as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved claims by Skydive Arizona against several defendants for trademark infringement, cybersquatting under Lanham Act section 43(d), and false advertising under section 43(a) arising from the defendants' promotion of skydiving services using the plaintiff's mark. A jury found most defendants liable on the infringement and cybersquatting claims, determined the violations were willful, and awarded $2.5 million in damages plus $2.5 million in profits on the infringement claim, $600,000 in statutory damages for cybersquatting, and $1 million in damages for false advertising. The court addressed the defendants' post-trial motions seeking to reduce the verdict under Lanham Act section 35(a), judgment notwithstanding the verdict, remittitur, or a new trial under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59, along with the plaintiff's motions for attorney fees and increased damages. Applying the standards for granting a new trial or remittitur only when a verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or excessive, and noting that certain challenges to evidence and jury instructions had been waived by failure to object at trial, the court evaluated whether the awards were supported by the record.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from the bankruptcy of Mortgages Ltd., which had made construction loans to PDG and NRDP that were not fully funded at the time of the filing; Mortgages Ltd. had sold participation interests in those loans to the Investors, accompanied by assignments of interests in the loan agreements. PDG and NRDP sued the Investors in state court, claiming the assignments made the Investors liable to provide the remaining funding. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the complaints, and the District Court affirmed on appeal. The court held that under Arizona precedent a bare assignment of contract rights for financing purposes does not imply an assumption of the assignor's duties, that third-party beneficiary principles barred the claims, and that even the Restatement approach would not create a presumption of delegation here. The opinion also upheld the procedural propriety of the bankruptcy removal and the denial of remand.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns TASER International's claims that Stinger Systems infringed three patents ('295, '870, and '262) related to electronic control devices such as stun guns, specifically technologies for dual-mode voltage output to overcome air gaps, battery power management, and tracking deployment date and time. After a Markman hearing to construe disputed claim terms, the court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on patent invalidity or noninfringement by Stinger and literal infringement by TASER. The court rejected Stinger's argument that practicing prior art defeats literal infringement, found Stinger's untimely challenge to the claim construction of 'track date and time' unpersuasive based on the patent examiner's statements, and noted that certain claim elements were essential to the ECD device rather than inventive additions.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case is a proposed collective action under the FLSA (and related Arizona and Oregon wage statutes) in which plaintiff Michelle Colson, a former Sales and Marketing Representative for defendant Avnet, alleged that she and similarly situated employees were misclassified as exempt administrative employees and therefore denied overtime pay. The court addressed Avnet’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and Colson’s motion for court-approved collective-action notice under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). It granted the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the state-law claims, and denied conditional certification of a collective action, finding that Colson had not presented evidence from other potential opt-in plaintiffs showing they were similarly situated. As a result, the case will proceed solely as an individual FLSA claim based on Colson’s own employment in one office.

labor & employment

In Ortiz v. Napolitano, a lawful permanent resident from Mexico who had been convicted of robbery in 1991 and later arrested for DUI challenged his mandatory detention without bond by ICE under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) through a habeas corpus petition. The court granted the petition after determining that the mandatory detention provision did not apply because the petitioner's release from his 1991 sentence occurred well before the statute's effective date. The core reasoning centered on the plain language of § 1226(c), which limits its application to individuals released from custody after the provision took effect, supported by case law and the agency's inconsistent interpretations that warranted no deference. As a result, the court ordered an immigration judge to conduct an individualized bond hearing within ten days.

immigrationcriminal law

The case involves Patricia Quinones, a U.S. Postal Service mail processing clerk, who sued Defendant John E. Potter alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act after she was placed on temporary and then permanent light duty due to medical restrictions from a 1996 surgery-related nerve injury, later terminated, reinstated via arbitration, and assigned modified positions amid ongoing neck and shoulder issues. The district court addressed the Postal Service's motion for summary judgment, analyzing whether Quinones established a prima facie case of discrimination, including whether she was a qualified individual with a disability and suffered an adverse employment action. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, concluding that Quinones failed to show she was a qualified individual because she did not demonstrate an ability to perform the essential functions of her position with or without reasonable accommodation, and she also did not establish a protected activity or causal link for the retaliation claim. The reasoning relied on medical evidence, job descriptions, and the absence of sufficient proof meeting the legal standards under the Rehabilitation Act.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case arose from a 2007 manufacturing and supply agreement between plaintiff Marlyn Nutraceuticals and defendant Improvita for nutritional products, which included an arbitration clause; after Improvita fell behind on payments and the parties had unsuccessful mediation and arbitration attempts, MNI sued Improvita and its individual officers Klamet and Kohler in federal court for breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Defendants Klamet and Kohler moved for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings entirely. It denied dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction as to the fraud claim, finding that the defendants had purposefully availed themselves of the Arizona forum through their contacts, but granted dismissal as to the negligent misrepresentation claim for insufficient minimum contacts; however, it exercised pendent personal jurisdiction to retain the latter claim because it arose from the same operative facts as the fraud claim.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves debtor James Sanders' appeal from an Arizona bankruptcy court's denial of his motion to dismiss his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and to continue a Rule 2004 examination. Sanders had previously been convicted of mail fraud and ordered to pay substantial restitution to Progressive Casualty Insurance, with prior bankruptcy proceedings finding the debt nondischargeable; after converting his Chapter 11 case to Chapter 7 and being held in contempt for failing to appear at examinations or produce documents, he sought dismissal. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order, applying standards of review for factual findings, legal conclusions, and discretionary decisions, and rejecting Sanders' procedural and substantive arguments as undeveloped or unsupported. The court found no abuse of discretion or reversible error in denying the motion to dismiss on the eve of examinations related to the ongoing restitution obligations.

procedure

In United States v. Fabela, the defendant faced thirteen counts of serious violent crimes such as conspiracy to commit murder, kidnapping, and related firearm offenses. After being deemed incompetent to stand trial and placed in federal custody for evaluation, the government requested involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication to restore competency, following an unsuccessful Harper hearing on dangerousness grounds. The district court denied the Sell order request after an evidentiary hearing, finding that special circumstances like potential civil confinement and time already served reduced the government's interest in prosecution, that medication was not shown to be substantially likely to restore competency without interfering side effects, and that less intrusive alternatives had not been adequately ruled out.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a dispute over insurance coverage for losses from a former employee's long-term embezzlement scheme at EaglePitcher, Inc. After the employee was terminated in March 2002 and later worked as a contractor until July 2002, an investigation uncovered the theft, leading to his arrest in October 2002; the company had switched from a Federal Insurance policy to a Zurich policy effective August 1, 2002, with both containing employee dishonesty coverage and specific reporting requirements triggered only upon discovery by the risk manager. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that for purposes of the Zurich policy's "Loss Sustained During Prior Insurance" provision, the company did not discover the loss until after the Federal policy's reporting period had expired, and that Zurich's "Cancellation As To Any Employee" condition did not bar coverage for dishonest acts before May 1, 2002; it also denied Zurich's summary judgment motion. The core reasoning focused on the policies' explicit terms limiting discovery to the risk manager (who remained unaware until after Brock's arrest), the timing of the employee's termination, and the confidentiality of the investigation, which prevented earlier knowledge from being imputed to the company.

business & regulatory

The case involves plaintiff Pamela Thompson, a former CFO of YP.Net, suing the company's attorneys at Lewis and Roca LLP, their spouses, and Capitol Detective Agency for stalking and harassing her and her children over several years, as well as for fraudulently inducing her to settle a related civil lawsuit by misrepresenting the existence of a criminal investigation into the company's CEO. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the claims, while the plaintiff sought reconsideration of a prior ruling and leave to file a second amended complaint adding new allegations. The court addressed these motions after reviewing the pleadings and hearing argument, analyzing issues including whether the claims state viable causes of action under Section 10(b) and state tort law, the timeliness of amendments under Rule 15, and the relationship between federal and state claims. Core reasoning focused on the sufficiency of the pleadings, relation-back of amendments, and whether certain allegations could support the asserted claims without violating heightened pleading standards.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In United States v. Norris, the defendant faced federal charges of second-degree murder and assault resulting in serious bodily injury after allegedly driving while severely intoxicated and striking a bicyclist, causing the victim's death. The government moved under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to admit evidence of the defendant's prior DUI conviction from 1995, related license revocation and reinstatement, completion of DUI education classes, and two 2007 arrests for drunk driving on the Gila River Indian Reservation, to prove the malice element required for second-degree murder. The court granted the motion in part, allowing the evidence in summarized form with a limiting instruction to the jury, finding it material to intent, sufficiently similar and not too remote, supported by adequate proof, and more probative than unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403. The decision relied on Ninth Circuit precedent holding that prior DUI evidence is admissible to establish malice aforethought in vehicular homicide cases.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Western Watersheds Project challenging the Bureau of Land Management's renewal of grazing permits in the Sonoran Desert National Monument and its failure to issue a required management plan or grazing compatibility determination under the monument's 2001 presidential proclamation issued pursuant to the Antiquities Act. The BLM moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, arguing that the proclamation's directives did not create judicially reviewable obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act and that an appropriations rider barred review of certain grazing claims. After initially dismissing the case, the court granted in part a motion to reconsider, vacated its prior order, and addressed whether agency compliance with such proclamations constitutes reviewable final agency action when the directives stem from congressionally delegated authority.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

The case involves a Polish national subject to a certificate of extraditability who filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the underlying probable cause determination. The court granted the petitioner's motion for release pending resolution of the habeas proceedings. It held that district courts have authority to order such release under the federal common law "special circumstances" doctrine from Wright v. Henkel, which applies after certification, and found multiple special circumstances present—including lack of flight risk, potential statute-of-limitations issues, eligibility for bail on related charges in Arizona or Poland, and community support—that cumulatively justified release on the same conditions previously imposed. The decision did not address the merits of the habeas petition itself.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Dialog4, a German company, and CRL and its officers over an asset purchase agreement, related stock purchase agreements, an arbitration award requiring stock registration with the SEC, and a subsequent settlement agreement that addressed payment and registration obligations. Dialog4 moved for partial summary judgment, claiming breach of the settlement agreement's registration requirements and seeking to enforce the original agreements and arbitration award. The court granted the motion in part, holding that defendants breached the settlement agreement's Paragraph 4 by failing to maintain effective SEC registration and that Brentlinger breached the stock purchase agreement, while also ruling that the settlement's release provision did not yet bar enforcement actions. However, the court denied summary judgment on the materiality of the breach and the availability of specific performance, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the significance of the registration lapse and defendants' partial compliance efforts. The decision rested on the plain terms of the agreements, undisputed facts of non-registration during certain periods, and the need for further evidence on whether any breach was material under contract law principles.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved former and current sales representatives suing their employer companies (Dex Media and Qwest) and union officials under civil RICO statutes, alleging a conspiracy to manipulate sales performance metrics, commissions, and account assignments to improperly benefit union agents with extra compensation and preferred accounts, in violation of LMRDA Section 302 prohibitions on employers providing things of value to union representatives. The court addressed pending motions for summary judgment filed by the corporate defendants and the union defendants, as well as plaintiffs' motion for an adverse inference based on alleged spoliation of evidence. The court denied summary judgment on the substantive RICO claim, finding that plaintiffs had submitted sufficient evidence to support an inference that the defendants entered into an agreement to conduct the alleged enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity, and that the corporate defendants had not shown they were merely victims of their employees' conduct. The court also addressed related evidentiary issues but did not grant the requested adverse inference sanction.

criminal lawlabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved claims by individual plaintiffs and an organization that deputies from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office engaged in racial profiling by stopping, detaining, and questioning Latino individuals based on their appearance in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, Title VII, and the Arizona Constitution. The defendants moved to dismiss, contending that the organization lacked standing, the individual claims failed as a matter of law, Maricopa County could not be held liable under §1983, and the Sheriff's Office was not a suable entity. The court applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, accepting all well-pleaded allegations as true and requiring only that the complaint provide fair notice of plausible claims, and denied the motion to dismiss after finding that the factual allegations sufficiently supported the claims for injunctive relief and that qualified immunity did not bar such prospective claims.

civil rightsprocedure