Douglas Preston Woodlock

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.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

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.

labor & employment

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.

civil rightsfederal power

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.

torts & liability

The case involves Tocci Building Corporation, the general contractor for a New York housing development, which faced two state-court lawsuits from the developer and tenants seeking over $40 million in damages for extensive water intrusion and related construction defects. Tocci sued its primary and excess insurers, including National Union, seeking a declaratory judgment that the excess policies would cover any liability exceeding the primary limits. National Union moved to dismiss the claim against it, arguing the dispute was not ripe because the primary insurance had not been exhausted. The court denied the motion, holding that Tocci had sufficiently pleaded its claim for prospective indemnification and that federal ripeness standards for declaratory judgment actions do not require exhaustion before such a suit can proceed.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

Millipore sued Gore for infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,293,477, which covers disposable, pre-sterilized fluid sampling devices with features like a port insert, flexible conduits, sample containers, and a cap on an elongate member. Gore counterclaimed for non-infringement and invalidity and moved for summary judgment, focusing on whether its Five-Valve and Single-Valve STA-PURE sampling systems met the patent's claim limitations. The court construed disputed terms, including the 'cap' as a distinct component that creates a liquid-tight seal and may prevent pull-out, then compared the claims to the accused products. It granted summary judgment of non-infringement, finding that Gore's devices use a silicone seal integrated with the rod rather than a separate cap located at the front, so they neither literally infringe nor infringe under the doctrine of equivalents due to prosecution history estoppel. The ruling resolved both claim construction disputes and the summary judgment motion without addressing validity.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This diversity case concerns a contract dispute arising from a subcontract between Children’s Hospital and George Washington University under an NIH-funded study on brain damage in premature newborns, where GW was to analyze blood samples using recycling immunoaffinity chromatography. Children’s sued for breach of contract, money had and received, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, while GW filed counterclaims including breach of contract for nonpayment. On cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the court denied Children’s motion as to the core breach-of-contract claim and GW’s parallel counterclaim due to genuine factual disputes over the scope of work and performance obligations, but granted Children’s motion on GW’s other counterclaims and granted GW’s motion on its breach counterclaim as well as on all of Children’s claims. The court entered judgment for GW in the amount of the unpaid invoices plus interest, reasoning that the contract documents established GW’s entitlement to payment absent a valid excuse based on nonperformance.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns a nonprofit organization operating residential substance abuse treatment programs that faced local opposition when attempting to relocate one such program in Framingham, Massachusetts, leading to claims that town officials and residents violated federal anti-discrimination laws and committed defamation. After earlier rulings allowed Fair Housing Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, and state defamation claims to proceed, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims. The court examined the factual record, including public statements, zoning processes under the Dover Amendment, and evidence of intent, to determine whether genuine disputes existed regarding discriminatory motivation or interference with protected rights. Core reasoning centered on the standards for intentional discrimination claims, legislative immunity for officials, and the elements of defamation under state law.

civil rightsproperty

The case involved an executor seeking a refund of overpaid federal estate taxes assessed by the IRS on the estate of Margaret Dickow, who died in 2003, after the executor had paid an estimated $945,000 and later filed returns claiming additional refunds. The IRS moved for summary judgment on the ground that the refund claim was untimely under 26 U.S.C. § 6511(b)(2)(A), while the executor cross-moved and asserted equitable estoppel based on alleged IRS silence regarding a denied second extension request. The court granted the IRS's motion and denied the executor's, holding that the claim was filed beyond the statutory limits following the 2004 payment and that equitable estoppel did not apply because the IRS lacked authority to grant a second extension and no affirmative misconduct was shown. The core reasoning rested on the plain text of the tax code barring late claims and precedents limiting estoppel against the government in tax matters.

taxesprocedure

The case is a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominican sugar industry executives Felipe and Juan Vicini Lluberes against the producers and distributor of the 2007 documentary The Price of Sugar, which examined working conditions for Haitian laborers on sugarcane plantations. The plaintiffs alleged that several statements and images in the film falsely implied their involvement in violence, threats, poor living conditions, and other misconduct on their properties. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the Vicinis were limited-purpose public figures required to prove actual malice. The court found that the Vicinis had thrust themselves into the public controversy over labor conditions in the Dominican sugar industry through their business roles and industry leadership positions, and that the record showed no genuine dispute that the filmmakers acted without actual malice.

free speechlabor & employment

The case involves claims by employees of non-public contractor companies in the mutual fund industry alleging unlawful retaliation for whistleblowing under Section 806(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The district court had previously held that the plaintiffs could state a claim under the statute. The court certified for interlocutory appeal to the First Circuit the controlling question whether the Act's whistleblower protections extend to employees of contractors or subcontractors of public companies who report suspected fraud related to shareholder interests. Certification was granted because the issue presents substantial grounds for differing judicial opinions, controls the outcome of the litigation, and an early appellate ruling would materially advance resolution of the cases.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

Plaintiff Debra Feldman sued multiple defendants including Twentieth Century Fox, NBC Universal, ABC, and others for copyright infringement, misappropriation, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment, alleging that television series such as Journeyman, Grey's Anatomy, Private Practice, Eli Stone, All My Children, and Cupid copied elements from her unpublished and published books in The Overlap Series about time-traveling families, as well as her personal letters and life details. The defendants moved to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted the motions, finding that the complaint failed to allege facts plausibly demonstrating access to or copying of protected elements of the copyrighted works, with only unprotectable ideas and general similarities identified, and that the state-law claims were preempted by federal copyright law.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a dispute over whether a mortgage held by South Point, Inc., as assignee, validly encumbers the bankruptcy debtor's interest in real property. The bankruptcy trustee argued, and the bankruptcy court agreed, that the mortgage was invalid as to the debtor because her name was added to the borrower definition after she signed the document, constituting a material alteration. On appeal, the district court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the trustee, reasoning that the original mortgage identified only another individual as borrower, and post-execution changes to include the debtor as a borrower could not create a lien on her interest without proper execution.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Dr. Abdul Razzaque Ahmed challenging the revocation of his Medicare billing privileges by the Department of Health and Human Services following his felony conviction for obstructing a criminal investigation into health care offenses. The court granted the Secretary's motion for judgment on the pleadings, upholding the revocation under regulations allowing such action for felonies detrimental to the Medicare program's interests within the preceding ten years. The reasoning centered on the direct applicability of the regulation to Ahmed's conviction for obstruction related to fraudulent Medicare claims, without needing to defer to agency interpretations as they aligned with the court's reading.

healthcarecriminal lawfederal power

This case involves two consolidated putative class actions brought by participants in Boston Scientific Corporation's 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan, alleging that the company and plan fiduciaries breached their ERISA fiduciary duties by continuing to offer and accept company stock as an investment option despite knowing that misleading disclosures had artificially inflated the stock price during the period from May 7, 2004 to January 26, 2006. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants failed to disclose issues related to DOJ investigations, product recalls, litigation settlements, and FDA warnings, leading to losses for plan participants. The court granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlement agreement, certified the settlement class consisting of plan participants who held interests in Boston Scientific stock during the class period, and authorized publication of class notice. The decision rested on findings that the class satisfied Rule 23 requirements for certification in this ERISA context and that the settlement warranted preliminary review pending a fairness hearing, despite some objections regarding the plan of allocation.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case is a securities fraud class action brought by Mississippi Public Employees’ Retirement System on behalf of purchasers of Boston Scientific stock against the company and its executives. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants withheld material information and made misleading statements about quality issues and no-deflate problems with the TAXUS drug-eluting stent (which shared a catheter platform with the Express 2 stent), leading to an eventual recall and artificial inflation of the stock price in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. After full discovery following remand from the First Circuit’s reversal of an earlier dismissal, the district court addressed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the developed record did not contain sufficient evidence for the claims to proceed to trial.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

This case arose after a 2003 oil spill in Buzzards Bay and addressed whether provisions of Massachusetts' Oil Spill Prevention Act (MOSPA) were preempted by the federal Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) as implemented by the Coast Guard. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's reports and recommendations, granting summary judgment to the United States and denying it to the Commonwealth. The court held that the Coast Guard's Final Rule expressly preempted the disputed MOSPA provisions. It further concluded that any failure by the Coast Guard to prepare an environmental impact statement under NEPA was a harmless procedural error because the rulemaking analysis functionally addressed the relevant environmental issues.

environmentfederal power

The case involved two former employees of private companies affiliated with Fidelity Investments who alleged retaliation after reporting alleged financial inaccuracies, improper fee retention, and methodological discrepancies affecting mutual fund profitability and board disclosures. The employees claimed protection under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's whistleblower provisions, administered by OSHA, while their employers moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the statute does not extend to employees of non-public entities. The court analyzed the statutory text defining covered employees and companies, the structure of mutual funds under the Investment Company Act (where public funds have no employees but contract with private advisers), legislative history, and precedents like Camero to assess whether SOX applies to such contractor or subsidiary relationships.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory