Recent News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[10/02] Castaneda v. Henneford
In a claim of Constitutional violations committed by officers and employees of the Public Health Service on a prisoner whose repeatedly untreated penile cancer resulted in his death, denial of a motion to dismiss is affirmed where 42 U.S.C. section 233(a) of the Federal Tort Claims Act does not provide a substitute for Bivens claims and thus does not entitle federal agents to absolute immunity from claims alleging Constitutional torts.

[10/01] In re Heritage Bond Litig.
In a challenge to the scope of bar orders issued in securities class action settlements, bar orders forbidding all suits by non-settling defendant against settling defendants relating to or arising out of the class action are vacated as overly broad and remanded for modification because bar orders issued pursuant to Private Securities Litigation Reform Act section 4(f)(7)(A) or California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 can only bar claims for contribution, indemnity, and claims where the injury is the non-settling defendant's liability to the class action plaintiffs.

[10/01] Levasseur v. U.S. Postal Serv.
In a case involving the so-called "postal matter exception" to the Federal Tort Claims Act, decision that postal-matter exception applies to intentional torts is affirmed where: 1) the word "negligent" only modifies the word "transmission" indicating that intentional acts of "loss" and "miscarriage" are also covered; and 2)the Supreme Court held that the postal-matter exception preserves immunity for "injuries arising, directly or consequentially, because mail either fails to arrive at all or arrives late, in damaged condition, or at the wrong address".

[10/01] Gustafson v. zumBrunnen
In a suit alleging negligence and tortious interference against a bank and an attorney for allowing the withdrawal of funds from a bank account that should have been part of a decedent's estate, dismissal for lack of federal diversity jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(c)(2), the legal representative of an estate suing on its behalf is a citizen of the same state as the decedent; 2) more than one person may be considered a legal representative of an estate for 1332(c)(2) purposes; and 3) under the applicable state law, a suit to bring property into an estate by someone other than the estate's representative was permissible only if the representative had failed to act to secure the property for the estate.

[09/30] Wood v. Jamison
In a malpractice action brought by the trustee of 78-year old decedent for defendant-attorney's role in performing legal services for client who convinced decedent that he was her nephew, judgment for damages, attorney's fees and costs based on legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and financial abuse of an elder is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to advise decedent of a conflict of interest; 2) defendant failed to advise decedent the investment was not appropriate for her, or at least to refer her to an independent investment advisor; and 3) defendant obtained an undisclosed profit from the transaction.

[09/29] Wachovia Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Toomey
Upon certified questions from the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in a case arising from the termination of two employment contracts, the court answers that: 1) a settlement agreement between two parties that explicitly contains both an assignment of causes of action against a third party insurer and an immediate release of the insured on the same causes of action is valid; 2) the claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising from the relationship between the insurance broker and the insured involving allegations of failure to provide insurance coverage was also assignable as it is analogous to a cause of action for bad faith; and 3) the claim for negligent failure to procure insurance coverage should not have been dismissed as a matter of law, was assignable, and should have been submitted to the jury.

More...

Probate Trusts

[10/01] Haneline Pacific Properties, LLC v. May
Grant of defendant's anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) motion is reversed and remanded where: 1) the gravamen of plaintiff's complaint did not relate to contemplated litigation but attempted at persuasion and negotiation between co-owners of property regarding how best to manage their property; 2) because the communications at issue were not covered by the litigation privilege, the anti-SLAPP motion should not have been granted; and 3) plaintiffs failed to develop an argument regarding entitlement to attorney's fees based on finding that anti-SLAPP motion was "frivolous" or "intended to cause unnecessary delay".

[10/01] Gustafson v. zumBrunnen
In a suit alleging negligence and tortious interference against a bank and an attorney for allowing the withdrawal of funds from a bank account that should have been part of a decedent's estate, dismissal for lack of federal diversity jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(c)(2), the legal representative of an estate suing on its behalf is a citizen of the same state as the decedent; 2) more than one person may be considered a legal representative of an estate for 1332(c)(2) purposes; and 3) under the applicable state law, a suit to bring property into an estate by someone other than the estate's representative was permissible only if the representative had failed to act to secure the property for the estate.

[09/14] Dummar v. Lummis
In a case involving the estate of the late billionaire Howard Hughes alleging that defendants deprived plaintiff of his inheritance by conspiring to cause a jury to reject a Holographic Will in 1978, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed where: 1) fraud and federal RICO claims were each time-barred; 2) a Nevada RICO claim failed to state a claim; and 3) an unjust-enrichment claim was barred by issue preclusion.

[09/12] Estate of Kievernagel
In a suit by widow for use of her late husband's frozen sperm to attempt to conceive a child despite signed agreement by late husband to discard sperm upon his death, judgment denying distribution of sperm to widow is affirmed where determining the disposition of gamete material, to which no other party contributed and thus another party's right to procreational autonomy is not implicated, the intent of the donor must control.

[09/04] Masry v. Masry
In a probate matter, judgment finding that husband's revocation from joint trust was valid is affirmed where: 1) the revocation provision in the trust was not explicitly exclusive; and 2) husband's method of revocation complied with Probate Code section 15401, subdivision (a)(2).

[08/27] Estate of Clementi
Denial of petition to revoke probate is affirmed where: 1) the deceased manifested a sufficient intent to create a charitable trust through his will, although his will does not identify a specific charity; and 2) the deceased's stated intent to "give the balance of my assets to a charitable foundation or trust" is sufficient to create the trust.

More...