Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

(Aviation lawyer) Tohono O’odham Nation v. US

More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Indian Law) In an action involving the management of Native American trust assets, Court of Federal Claims’ grant of defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is reversed where plaintiff’s complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeks relief different from the relief sought in its earlier-filed district court action, and thus 28 U.S.C. sec. 1500 does not divest the Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction.

Ventura County Human Serv. Agency v. C.M.

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Family Law, Government Law, Indian Law) In a child dependency action, juvenile court order terminating parental rights and finding defendant’s child adoptable is affirmed where plaintiff took the necessary steps under the Indian Child Welfare Act to determine whether the child was of Indian ancestry, and any failure to contact other relatives to elicit further information was unsuccessful due to defendant’s hostility toward plaintiff.

Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes of Okla. v. US

(U.S. D.C. Cir., Civil Procedure, Indian Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In Plaintiff Indian tribe’s action to quiet title to certain lands, dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed, where the District Court properly dismissed the action without permitting jurisdictional discovery because Plaintiff failed to specify what facts such discovery would produce.

Comfort v. Lynn Sch. Comm.

(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Procedure, Education Law) In an action involving a race-based student assignment policy, district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for relief from final judgment is affirmed where plaintiff’s claims do not come within any of the circumstances under rule 60 (b)(5) from which relief from a final judgment may be justified, as the prior judgment upon which the district court’s order rested has not been reversed and the prior judgment has no prospective application as defined in context.

US ex rel Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc.

(U.S. 8th Cir., Civil Procedure, Injury And Tort Law) In an action involving the False Claims Act, district court’s denial of leave to amend and motion to alter or amend the judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court’s properly denied plaintiff’s motion after he conceded his initial complaint failed to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement; and 2) plaintiff’s subsequent amended pleading did not explain how it cured the Rule 9(b) deficiencies in the initial complaint.

attorney in tampa florida

(Tampa dui attorney) Comfort v. Lynn Sch. Comm.

More info…
(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Procedure, Education Law) In an action involving a race-based student assignment policy, district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for relief from final judgment is affirmed where plaintiff’s claims do not come within any of the circumstances under rule 60 (b)(5) from which relief from a final judgment may be justified, as the prior judgment upon which the district court’s order rested has not been reversed and the prior judgment has no prospective application as defined in context.

Lopez v. Holder

(U.S. 5th Cir., Civil Procedure, Immigration Law) Denial of Petitioners’ petition for review of their removal from the U.S. is vacated, where the magistrate judge who had heard their earlier habeas petition did not have jurisdiction to hear their subsequent petition for review without Petitioners’ consent.

Liberty Lincoln-Mercury Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.

(U.S. 3d Cir., Civil Procedure, Retail, Wholesale) In a dispute over a franchise fee program, district court order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs is reversed and remanded where the district court did not make the necessary finding of irreparable harm to grant the injunction, as plaintiff’s harm was incorrectly measured in solely monetary terms.

Pagan v. Glendale

(U.S. 6th Cir., Civil Procedure, Communications Law, Constitutional Law) In a First Amendment challenge to Defendant-Village’s restriction on commercial speech, summary judgment for Plaintiff is affirmed where the Court of Appeals had reached the merits of Defendant-Village’s motion for summary judgment in a prior opinion, and thus the District Court’s entry of final judgment for Plaintiff was proper.

Chavez v. Carranza

(U.S. 6th Cir., Civil Procedure, Injury And Tort Law, International Law) In an action under the Alien Tort Claims Act for crimes against humanity by the government of El Salvador, judgment for Plaintiffs is affirmed, where equitable tolling of the statute of limitations was proper because the situation in El Salvador at the relevant time precluded the administration of justice.

tampa dui attorney

(St petersburg lawyer) ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Sys., Inc.

More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving medical technology, judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) district court correctly construed the disputed “spike” term and held noninfringement with respect to the asserted claims; 2) the asserted claims of the patents are invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. section 112; and 3) the award of attorney’s fees and Rule 11 sanctions were not an abuse of discretion.

attorney in tampa

(Clearwater lawyer) Nartron Corp. v. Schukra U.S.A., Inc.

More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving a vehicle seat control system that provides massage capability, District Court’s of grant summary judgment of dismissal of the complaint because of Plaintiff’s failure to join an alleged co-inventor is reversed, where any contribution co-Defendant made to the invention was insignificant and therefore prevents it from attaining the status of a co-inventor.

Jones v. Blige

(U.S. 6th Cir., Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property) In a copyright infringement action based on the alleged misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ song, summary judgment for Defendants is affirmed where: 1) Plaintiffs failed to prove that Defendants had access to Plaintiffs’ song; and 2) Defendants wrote their song before the creation of Plaintiffs’ song.

Eli Lilly and Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA., Inc.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action related to a drug for the treatment and prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis, the district court’s order in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where the court did not abuse its discretion in extending a statutory thirty-month stay preventing the FDA from approving defendant’s new drug application due to defendant’s discovery violations.

St Petersburg Lawyer