Case Summaries
Transportation
[09/09]
Kurns v. A.W. Chesterton Inc.
[09/03]
Songer v. Dillon Resources, Inc.
In an action brought by truck drivers who operate commercial trucks against defendants for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), summary judgment for defendants and dismissal of plaintiffs' claims with prejudice is affirmed where the Motor Carrier Act exemption applies to bar plaintiffs' claims as: 1) the MCA applies to defendant-staff leasing agency because is a joint employer with the two companies, both of whom are subject to the exemption, and 2) plaintiffs engaged in activities that directly affect operational safety of motor vehicles in transport of property in interstate commerce.
[08/31]
Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp.
In an action seeking to attach defendant's property in New York as pre-judgment security for a pending arbitration in Hong Kong, dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court did not err in declining to fashion an equitable remedy in circumstances where it was clear that the original attachment order could not be sustained in light of Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009).
[08/30]
Meyers v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger
In plaintiff's occupational injury lawsuit against his employer, Amtrack, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to establish the required causation element of his FELA action is affirmed as, because plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the reports and testimony of his proffered causation experts were properly barred by the district court, and as such, plaintiff failed to raise genuine issues of material fact with respect to the causation element of his FELA claim.
[08/30]
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Chimet, S.P.A.
In Delta Airlines' suit for declaratory judgment seeking to limit its liability for losing approximately 100 kilograms of pure platinum shipped from Italy to Pennsylvania, district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is affirmed as the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant's motion to dismiss as the private interest factors affecting the convenience of the litigants and the public interest factors affecting the convenience of the forum weighed in favor of litigating this dispute in Italy.
[08/26]
R&B Transp., LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Admin. Review Bd.
Petition for review of a final decision and order of the U.S. Department of Labor's Administrative Review Board's (Board) award of backpay and other expenses to an employee, a commercial trucker, in determining that the employee's termination violated the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), is denied where: 1) it was not an abuse of the ALJ's broad discretion to admit DOT reports not as character evidence but both pursuant to the "public records and reports" hearsay exception and as proof of petitioners' knowledge concerning their history of complying with the driving regulation; 2) substantial evidence supports findings that a causal connection existed between the employee's protected activity and the adverse employment action against him, and that the petitioner's proffered reason for terminating the employee was actually a pretext for unlawful retaliation; and 3) the Board's legal ruling that petitioners waived their claim regarding backpay was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
[08/26]
Tanen v. Southwest Airlines Co.
In plaintiff's suit against an airline for refusing to honor an expired $100 travel certificate, claiming that the expiration date violated Civil Code section 1749.5, which makes it unlawful to sell a gift certificate that contains an expiration date, trial court's order sustaining defendant's demurrer on the ground that plaintiff's claims were preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), is affirmed where: 1) for a claim to be preempted by the ADA, the claim must relate to airline rates, routes or services, and the claim must derive from the enactment or enforcement of state law; and 2) here, both prongs of the test are met as plaintiff's claims relate to "services" because they concern the airline's sale of gift certificates that can be used to purchase airline travel and his claims derive from state law because it is on a California statute that plaintiff bases his claim that the expiration date on the face of the gift certificate is unenforceable.
[08/24]
Combo Maritime, Inc. v. U.S. United Bulk Terminal, LLC
In an action for contribution and indemnity, and property damage, based on a barge breakaway, summary judgment for third-party defendant is reversed where there were insufficient findings in the record to determine whether the passing vessel presumption should have been applied against third-party defendant.
[08/24]
Jones v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co.
In plaintiff's negligence action against defendant-railroad company arising from a collision between plaintiff's husband's vehicle and a train owned by defendant, district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for sanctions and denial of of her post-trial motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff cannot now demand a new trial as she had ample reason and opportunity to seek corrective action in the form of a mistrial before the jury returned its verdict in favor of defendant; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying post-trial discovery and an evidentiary hearing based on plaintiff's insufficient showing that defense counsel ultimately withheld material information or bribed a witness; and 3) although the district court erred in invoking Rule 11, its entry of sanctions against defense counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, 28 U.S.C. section 1927 was not an abuse of its authority.
[08/23]
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Air Express Int'l. USA, Inc.
In an action concerning the spoliation of temperature-sensitive insulin products, which were shipped by air from France to Indiana and were exposed to sub-freezing temperatures en route, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where summary judgment was appropriately granted on the issue of whether the cargo was damaged in transit. However, the order is reversed in part where the parties did not intend for the liability provision of the long-term service agreement to subject the air waybill contracts to increased limits of liability.
[08/17]
Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am. LLC
In a class action alleging that Land Rover's LR3 vehicles suffer from an alignment geometry defect that caused tires to wear prematurely, the denial of plaintiff's motion for class certification is reversed where: 1) the district court erred when it required plaintiffs to show that a majority of proposed class members’ vehicles manifested the results of the defect; 2) defendant identified no defenses unique to plaintiffs that would make class certification inappropriate; and 3) classwide adjudication of plaintiffs' claims was superior to other means of adjudicating this case.
[08/16]
Szekeres v. CSX Transp. Inc.
In plaintiff's action against his employer under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) and the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is reversed where: 1) district court improperly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's LLA and C.F.R. claim as he provided sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on the issue of whether the toilet facility was sanitary and there was a direct tie between his inability to use the onboard toilet facility and his accident; and 2) plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of plaintiff's constructive notice of the muddy conditions surrounding the switch to survive summary judgment.
[08/10]
Frederick v. Swift Transp. Co.
In a personal injury action arising out of a truck accident, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) although the driver ingested methamphetamine while driving, this did not remove her from the scope of her employment; 2) under the doctrine of respondeat superior, defendant was liable for all the negligent behavior of its employee, which included violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; and 3) even if New Mexico were to adopt defendant's proposed rule, the court's instruction would have been proper in light of the rule’s exception for punitive damages.
[08/09]
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Mayflower Transit, LLC
In a suit by owner-operators of leased trucks against a carrier pursuant to 49 U.S.C. section 14704(a)(2), claiming that a chargeback violates 49 C.F.R. section 376.12(i), which provides that the lessor is not required to purchase or rent any products, equipment, or services from the authorized carrier as a condition of entering into the lease arrangement, district court's judgment is affirmed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's dismissal of some of the claims after concluding that the statute of limitations is two years is remanded as neither section 14704(a)(2) nor any other statute sets a period of limitations for suits on its authority; and 2) the district court's conclusion that a chargeback differs from a compulsory purchase of insurance is affirmed on the merits.
[08/06]
Pace v. CSX Transp., Inc
In a nuisance claim stemming from defendant's construction and use of a side track adjacent to property owned by plaintiffs, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the language of 49 U.S.C. section 10501(b) plainly conveyed Congress's intent to preempt all state law claims pertaining to the operation or construction of a side track.
