Ann L. Aiken

The case involved Michael Hedlund seeking discharge of his government-insured student loans in bankruptcy under the undue hardship exception of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). The bankruptcy court partially discharged amounts exceeding roughly $32,000 after applying the Brunner test and finding that full repayment would cause undue hardship given Hedlund's employment history, family obligations, and failed bar exam attempts. PHEAA appealed, and the district court reversed the bankruptcy court's ruling. The district court concluded that Hedlund had not met the Brunner factors, including evidence that he could increase household income through additional work by himself or his spouse and that he had not made sufficient efforts to repay the loans despite available repayment options.

federal power

The case involved plaintiff Craig Shaw suing his former employer, Restaurants Unlimited, Inc., for wrongful discharge under Oregon common law, alleging he was fired in retaliation for filing an age discrimination complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The core reasoning was that the decision to terminate the plaintiff had been made prior to the filing of the complaint, so there was no causal link between the protected activity and the discharge, and any statutory claim would similarly fail on the merits.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff suing Breg, Inc., the manufacturer of a medical pain pump device, for products liability and negligence after the device was used following her shoulder surgeries and allegedly caused glenohumeral chondrolysis, a condition destroying cartilage in the joint. Breg moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred by the statute of limitations, that it lacked knowledge of any dangers associated with intra-articular use, that any failure to warn did not cause the injury, and that punitive damages were unavailable. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on each point, including when the plaintiff reasonably could have discovered the link to the device, the extent of Breg's knowledge and marketing practices regarding FDA-cleared uses, and the impact on causation and punitive claims.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

In Schoenborn v. Stryker Corp., plaintiffs sued the manufacturer and distributor of a medical pain pump device for products liability and negligence after the device was used to deliver anesthetics directly into plaintiff Eric Schoenborn's shoulder joint following surgery, allegedly causing glenohumeral chondrolysis. Stryker moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to warn of risks because it did not know and could not have known of them at the time of the 2004 surgery, that plaintiffs could not prove causation, and that punitive damages were unavailable. The court denied the motion, finding material issues of fact regarding whether Stryker knew or should have known of toxicity risks associated with intra-articular use, whether its alleged failure to warn caused the injury in light of the surgeon's testimony, and whether the facts supported punitive damages. The opinion discusses FDA 510(k) clearance processes for the Class II device and evidence of Stryker's marketing practices for unapproved uses.

torts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

In Caldwell v. Astrue, the plaintiff sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner's denial of his applications for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income, claiming disability beginning in 2002 due to memory loss, headaches, arthritis, back pain, and depression. The district court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded for further administrative proceedings. The ALJ had found at step four that the plaintiff could perform past relevant work as a motel cleaner and cannery worker based on a residual functional capacity for light work limited to simple tasks with minimal public interaction, but the court held that the ALJ erred by failing to give germane reasons specific to each lay witness when discounting third-party statements from the plaintiff's acquaintances about his impairments and by omitting the limitations described in that testimony from the hypothetical questions to the vocational expert. The court concluded that the error was not harmless because including the lay testimony could have altered the vocational expert's responses and the step-four finding.

healthcareprocedure

In Longmore v. Astrue, the plaintiff sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner's denial of Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, claiming disability since 1997 due to physical ailments and severe mental illness including schizophrenia. The Administrative Law Judge had granted benefits only from January 2006 onward, finding the plaintiff could perform other work prior to that date. The court reversed the decision, holding that the ALJ's findings were not supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding the plaintiff's credibility and the onset of his psychiatric condition as indicated by treating psychiatrists, and remanded for payment of benefits starting earlier.

federal powerhealthcare

In Lonberg v. Freddie Mac, the plaintiff sued the mortgage assignee under the Truth in Lending Act seeking to rescind her 2007 home refinance loan based on allegedly defective notices of the right to cancel that listed the wrong transaction date and omitted the three-day deadline; she also claimed breach of contract, alleging that the servicer failed to convert her temporary HAMP trial period plan into a permanent modification after she made the required payments and submissions. The defendant moved to dismiss both claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The court denied dismissal of the rescission claim, finding that factual questions remained regarding the defendant's potential liability as an assignee and the sufficiency of the plaintiff's allegations. The court granted dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim with leave to amend, reasoning that the TPP language expressly conditioned any permanent modification on execution of a separate agreement by both parties and that the complaint did not allege such an executed agreement.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Butler v. Astrue, claimant Holly Butler sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her applications for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income, alleging disability from conditions including interstitial cystitis, irritable bowel syndrome, seizure disorder, personality disorder, and related issues. The ALJ applied the five-step sequential evaluation process, found that Butler had severe impairments but retained the residual functional capacity to perform other work existing in the economy, and concluded she was not disabled. The district court affirmed the Commissioner's decision after reviewing the record, determining that the ALJ's findings on the severity of impairments, credibility assessments, residual functional capacity, and step-five vocational analysis were supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error under applicable regulations and Ninth Circuit precedent.

federal powerhealthcare

The case concerned Western Radio Services' challenge to provisions in an interconnection agreement with Qwest Corp., an incumbent local exchange carrier, that had been arbitrated and approved by the Oregon Public Utility Commission under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and FCC regulations. Western, a commercial mobile radio service provider, alleged that the agreement's terms on reciprocal compensation, rates, and related language violated federal requirements. The court ruled in favor of Qwest and the PUC, affirming the commission's orders. It held that the agreement met the Act's standards, that Western had not identified specific violations or shown that disputed provisions altered required meanings, and that the PUC properly adopted the terms from arbitration.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves plaintiff Frontier Recovery, the current owner of a former landfill site, suing defendant Lane County, which operated the site from 1974 to 1978, to recover costs for cleaning up methane gas and other contamination discovered during development efforts. Plaintiff brought claims under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) citizen suit provisions for violations of permit standards and imminent endangerment, along with related state law claims for cost recovery, contribution, indemnity, and nuisance. After de novo review of the magistrate judge's findings, the district court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part: denying the motion as to the RCRA subsection (B) claim, state statutory cost recovery, and contribution claims due to potential genuine issues of material fact on ongoing risks and liability; and granting it as to the RCRA subsection (A) claim for lack of an ongoing violation, the indemnity claim without prejudice pending a DEQ closing letter, and the nuisance claim because successive landowners cannot maintain such actions against prior owners under applicable precedents.

environmentpropertytorts & liability

This diversity case concerns whether insurance companies breached their duty to defend a homebuilder under general liability policies in underlying lawsuits alleging negligence and breach of contract for constructing a house on substandard, uncompacted fill that caused structural damage. The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the duty-to-defend claim. The court granted the motion, holding that the policies' exclusions for property damage (including those for premises, products, and work performed) did not apply because the claims involved real property, damage occurring away from the insured's premises, and work by subcontractors. The core reasoning was that the underlying complaints alleged facts potentially covered by the policies' property-damage provisions, triggering the duty to defend.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In these consolidated products liability cases, multiple plaintiffs alleged that they suffered permanent cartilage loss in the shoulder joint after pain pumps were used to deliver local anesthetics following arthroscopic surgery. Defendants moved to exclude the general causation opinions of nine plaintiffs' experts under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard, arguing the testimony was unreliable or irrelevant, and plaintiffs cross-moved to exclude two defense experts. The court granted the defense motions in full as to three experts, in part as to one expert, and denied them as to the rest, while denying plaintiffs' motions entirely. These rulings rested on evaluations of each expert's qualifications, the scientific reliability of their methods and data, and the fit of their opinions to the causation issues in the case.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involves plaintiff McGee seeking to halt a foreclosure sale of his home by defendant Gregory Funding, alleging that three successive refinance loans from 2005 to 2007 violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) due to missing material disclosures, failure to provide cancellation notices, and predatory terms that stripped home equity. Plaintiff exercised his right to rescind the later loans and sought injunctive relief, a temporary restraining order, and a preliminary injunction. The court granted the preliminary injunction, finding a likelihood of success on the merits after adjusting the TILA statute of limitations for equitable tolling based on fraudulent concealment, that plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm from losing his home, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored relief; it also addressed plaintiff's plan to tender repayment through his bankruptcy proceedings.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved Oregon State University students who published an independent newspaper, The Liberty, and challenged OSU administrators' unwritten policy on newspaper bin placement after their bins were removed from campus, alleging violations of their First Amendment free speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process rights. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on claims for injunctive and prospective declaratory relief, finding those claims moot because the university had since adopted a new written policy that treated all publications equally and expanded bin locations. It also granted the motion to dismiss all remaining claims for damages and retrospective relief, reasoning that the individual defendants had no direct involvement in the bin removals, that the plaintiffs' newspaper was not similarly situated to the official student-funded paper, and that there were insufficient facts to support claims of viewpoint discrimination or lack of notice. The court concluded that the complaint failed to state plausible claims under the plausibility standard from Iqbal and Twombly.

free speechcivil rightsprocedure

This case arose from a 2004 bankruptcy filing by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland involving tort claims related to clergy sexual abuse of minors. The District Court reviewed an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's order lifting a protective order on personnel records and depositions concerning two priests, Fathers M and D, and authorizing their release into the public domain with redactions. The court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, finding that the priests bore the burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to show good cause for continued protection since no such finding had been made when the order was entered, and that their privacy interests did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure of documents showing credible allegations. The ruling rested on the Bankruptcy Court's individualized review of the documents and the absence of demonstrated serious injury from release.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a condominium owners' association seeking insurance coverage under a State Farm policy for alleged damage at its buildings, claiming the loss qualified as a collapse caused by hidden decay of weight-bearing structural members. The insurer denied full coverage, arguing the claimed conditions did not meet the policy's definition of collapse, did not occur during the policy period, and were not properly supported. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact because the evidence showed only partial decay of portions of structural members rather than an entire collapse of any part of a building as required by the policy language. The court interpreted the terms "entire collapse" and "any part of a building" according to their plain meaning and held that the plaintiff's expert testimony failed to establish coverage.

property

The case concerns West American Insurance Company's suit for declaratory relief that it owed no coverage under a homeowner's policy for damage from a January 2007 arson fire at property owned by Justin and Daniela Hernandez, with Chase Home Finance as mortgagee. The policy contained exclusions for vandalism losses on vacant property, intentional losses caused by an insured, and conditions requiring the mortgagee to notify the insurer of ownership or occupancy changes. The Hernandezes and Chase moved for summary judgment on the claims, as did the insurer. The court granted the Hernandezes' motion in part as to the vacancy exclusion claim but denied all remaining motions, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed on vacancy, intentional causation, and Chase's notice obligations.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Dawson v. Entek International, a temporary employee alleged that his male coworkers harassed him with slurs about his sexual orientation, that he was fired shortly after complaining about the comments, and that the termination and workplace environment supported claims of Title VII and state-law discrimination, intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful discharge. The court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. It found no evidence that the no-call/no-show violation cited as the reason for termination was pretextual or connected to the harassment complaint, that the plaintiff had exercised any protected right giving rise to a wrongful-discharge claim, or that the facts met the high threshold for emotional-distress recovery under Oregon law. The employer had investigated the complaint and taken remedial steps even after the plaintiff's departure.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Williams v. Hall, petitioner Shawn Williams filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1992 state convictions for murder and attempted murder on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed trial counsel failed to seek a change of venue due to extensive media coverage and failed to raise a Batson challenge to the prosecutor's use of a peremptory strike against the only remaining African American prospective juror, resulting in an all-white jury. The court had previously found the claims not procedurally defaulted and scheduled an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner moved for permission to interview jurors beforehand to develop supporting evidence. The court granted the motion for good cause under Habeas Rule 6(a), finding the discovery essential to fully develop the claims, but required petitioner to submit a detailed discovery plan for court approval to limit scope and cost.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a pro se plaintiff suing the Albany Police Department and an officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful seizure, along with state claims of false arrest and defamation/false light, after police detained him based on a neighbor's report of an alleged murder confession. The court granted the officer's motion for summary judgment on the defamation claim, finding the statements were not false and were privileged as official duties, and granted the department's motion on the § 1983 claim. It denied the department's motion on the false arrest claim and all of the plaintiff's summary judgment motions, however, because genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether probable cause supported the arrest and detention. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint to name individual defendants on the federal claim.

criminal lawcivil rightstorts & liability