In this qui tam action, relators alleged that Medtronic violated the False Claims Act and similar state laws by knowingly promoting its Class III medical devices, such as biliary stents, for off-label uses not approved by the FDA, which caused the submission of false claims for reimbursement by government healthcare programs, and that Medtronic wrongfully terminated one relator in retaliation for her efforts to stop the violations. Medtronic moved to dismiss the claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, applying the FCA's first-to-file bar, public disclosure bar, original source exception, and heightened pleading requirements under Rule 9(b) for fraud allegations while considering the FDCA's regulatory framework for device approvals and intended uses.
In the case of In re Fiorillo, the debtor filed a pro se Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition to invoke the automatic stay against foreclosure and certified under penalty of perjury that he had received credit counseling but lacked certification, later seeking to amend the filing to claim exigent circumstances for a waiver. After the bankruptcy court converted the case to Chapter 7 liquidation due to the debtor's failure to cooperate and file required documents, he moved to dismiss on grounds that his noncompliance with the 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) credit-counseling requirement made him ineligible as a debtor and deprived the court of jurisdiction. The district court affirmed the denial of the motion, ruling that the debtor was judicially estopped from belatedly asserting noncompliance after having obtained the benefits of the bankruptcy proceedings through inconsistent sworn representations.
The case concerned a Sarbanes-Oxley Act whistleblower retaliation claim filed by an employee against his former employer and related entities, with the defendants seeking to compel arbitration under a predispute employment agreement. While the motion to compel was pending, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act, which added provisions barring enforcement of predispute arbitration agreements for such claims. Applying the Supreme Court's retroactivity framework, the court first found no express statutory language on temporal reach. It then determined that the arbitration bar would affect substantive rights and liabilities arising from pre-enactment conduct, triggering the presumption against retroactivity and rendering the new prohibition inapplicable to the pending dispute.
The case involved a labor dispute between Aggregate Industries, a quarry operator, and Teamsters Local Union No. 42 over the company's unilateral reassignment of work from union-represented quarry drivers to loaders, which the union grieved as a violation of the collective bargaining agreement. An arbitrator sustained the grievance, finding that the management rights clause in the CBA did not authorize the change without bargaining. Aggregate sued to vacate the award under Section 301 of the LMRA, and both parties moved for summary judgment. The court granted the union's motion and denied Aggregate's, reasoning that courts must accord substantial deference to arbitral awards and uphold an arbitrator's plausible interpretation of the contract.
This case concerns Sudbury Public Schools' challenge to a Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals decision under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which required the district to reimburse a student with a language-based learning disability for private placement at The Carroll School during the 2009-2010 school year. The BSEA hearing officer had found that Sudbury's proposed IEP failed to offer a free appropriate public education because it did not provide sufficiently small, structured classes or adequate supports matched to the student's needs. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court reviewed the administrative record, including evaluations showing the student's requirements for intensive language-based instruction, and concluded that the hearing officer's determinations on both the inadequacy of the public IEP and the appropriateness of the private placement were supported by the evidence. The court therefore granted judgment upholding the reimbursement order.
The case involved owners of a recreational sailboat seeking to recover damages for the loss of use of their vessel during a planned vacation after it was damaged in a collision with a harbor master's boat. The district court granted summary judgment against the owners on their claim for detention damages. Although the court found persuasive the views of Judges Hand and Cardozo that such damages should be available if the loss can be adequately proven regardless of whether the use was recreational or commercial, it was bound by the Supreme Court's 1897 decision in The Conqueror, which held that detention damages require proof of pecuniary loss in the form of lost commercial profits and not mere loss of recreational use.
