Corporate Counsel Center Government Relations Newsletter

U.S. 9th Circuit, May 12, 2008
Taylor v. Westly, No. 07-16902, 07-17223
In long-running litigation involving the constitutionality of California's statutory procedure addressing escheat, grant of a motion to dissolve an injunction preventing the operation of California's escheat process is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) on its face, the state's new procedure complies with the due process standard previously established by the Supreme Court; 2) there was no abuse of discretion in dissolving the injunction; but 3) a denial of interim attorney's fees to plaintiffs was an abuse of discretion under the circumstances. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit, May 12, 2008
Jacobs v. Clark County Sch. Dist., No. 05-16434
In a case raising constitutional challenges to a public school district's mandatory dress policies or "school uniform policies," the circuit court rules that neither the school district's regulation, which created a standard dress code for all county students, nor the individual school uniform policies implemented thereunder violated plaintiffs' free speech, free exercise, or due process rights. Read more...

U.S. 1st Circuit, May 13, 2008
Cao v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, No. 07-1394
In an action wherein plaintiff sought recovery under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for alleged constitutional violations along with several state law causes of action after she was removed from her home, made to undergo a psychological evaluation, and placed in a state institution for the elderly, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's section 1983 claim as untimely; and 2) with no federal cause of action remaining, the district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims. Read more...

U.S. 6th Circuit, May 13, 2008
S&M Brands, Inc. v. Cooper, No. 06-5828, 06-5829
In an action involving the Tennessee's Attorney General's enforcement of an amended escrow provision in the Master Settlement Agreement between various states and tobacco manufacturers alleging an impermissible retroactive effect in violation of due process, a summary judgment ruling is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice on grounds of sovereign immunity where: 1) continuous application of the retroactive statute is unlikely; 2) states enjoy immunity in federal court for tax-related claims; 3) the inherent dignity of the sovereign state favors immunity; and 4) the semi-tax nature of the escrow system would better lend itself to a suit in state court. Read more...

U.S. 6th Circuit, May 13, 2008
U.S. ex rel Marlar v. BWXT Y-12, LLC, No. 07-6051
In an action alleging violation of the the False Claims Act and discharge in retaliation for whistleblowing, dismissal of the fraud complaint is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the procedures used to defraud the government; and 2) plaintiff failed to allege facts regarding a false claim presented to the government. However, dismissal of the retaliation claim is reversed and remanded where plaintiff provided sufficient information regarding the retaliatory nature of her discharge. Read more...

U.S. 8th Circuit, May 13, 2008
Union County, Iowa v. Piper Jaffray & Co., Inc., No. 08-8003
In a diversity action wherein the district court certified an interlocutory appeal concerning a discovery order, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the district court abused its discretion in certifying the interlocutory appeal when the statutory requirements were not satisfied. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit, May 13, 2008
Lawrence v. Dep't of the Interior, No. 06-35448
In an action brought by an Indian tribe member employed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) challenging the denial of increased retirement benefits payable to employees whose duties included firefighting, summary judgment for the BIA is affirmed where: 1) the government did not waive the time limit of 5 C.F.R. section 831.906(e) by failing to provide actual notice of the new time limit for filing to current employees; 2) the federal government's trust responsibility toward Indian tribes imposes no special notice obligation beyond that enunciated in the aforementioned rule; 3) the Indian Preference Act does not apply, and the regular provisions of the Civil Service Regulations govern plaintiff as they do any other employee; and 4) summary judgment on a disparate impact claim was proper. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit, May 13, 2008
N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, No. 05-16069
In an action brought by a developer against the city of Pacifica involving a proposed condominium project, dismissal of developer's substantive due process claim is affirmed, but an order holding city liable for an equal protection violation is reversed and the resultant damages awards vacated where: 1) the developer was not entitled to judgment on an equal protection claim, as the city did not intentionally treat it differently from any other developer; and 2) a due process claim should not be resurrected because developer did not allege any irrational delay in the city's approval of its permits. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit, May 13, 2008
Levine v. City of Alameda, No. 06-15480, 06-15481
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a city property manager against defendants-city and city manager alleging a due process violation stemming from his lay off, partial summary judgment for plaintiff and defendants is affirmed where the district court did not err in finding that: 1) plaintiff's procedural due process rights were violated and that he was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing before a neutral third-party; and 2) the city manager was not personally liable based on qualified immunity and the city was not liable as a municipality. Read more...

California Appellate Districts, May 13, 2008
Steele v. Youthful Offender Parole Bd., No. C053553
A judgment finding an employer liable under Fair Employment and Housing Act for retaliation against a plaintiff-employee and awarding economic damages along with attorney's fees is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity, subjected to adverse employment action, and that a causal link existed between plaintiff's participation as a witness and the adverse employment action; and 2) consequently , the attorney's fees award was proper. Read more...

U.S. 5th Circuit, May 14, 2008
Cruz v. State of Louisiana, No. 07-30501
Dismissal of state and federal claims of sexual discrimination against defendants is affirmed where dismissal of a federal claim due to plaintiff's failure to timely serve defendant prevented interruption of the prescriptive period in state courts against defendants from Louisiana. Read more...

U.S. 5th Circuit, May 14, 2008
U.S. v. Jesco Constr. Corp., No. 06-31007
In a statutory interpleader action involving certain funds owed by the Army Corps of Engineers to defendant, summary judgment determining the parties' claims' respective priority is affirmed where: 1) losing intervenor's argument of equitable subrogation is not recognized by Louisiana courts; 2) although losing intervenor has a right of subrogation by operation of law, it is still inferior to the prevailing intervenor's perfected security interest claim. Read more...

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2008
Springer v. Adkins, No. 2007-3180
A decision granting respondent an increased annuity payment under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) is affirmed where: 1) retirement under 5 U.S.C. section 8451 does not incorporate the age and years of service requirements of section 8412 except where explicitly stated; and 2) the FERS disability annuity provisions require that a firefighter annuitant's benefits be the greater of that which is computed under sections 8452(a) and 8415(d). Read more...

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 15, 2008
Huntleigh USA Corp. v. US, No. 2007-5118
In a company's action against the government alleging, inter alia, that the Aviation and Transportation Security Act's (ATSA) transfer of responsibility for passenger and baggage screening resulted in an unconstitutional taking of its property without just compensation, a judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff could not claim a taking since the ATSA did not regulate plaintiff directly but merely "frustrated" plaintiff's business expectations by reducing the demand for plaintiff's services; and 2) plaintiff was not entitled to compensation under ATSA section 101(g)(2) since it gives the government the power to assume the contracts but does not require it to do so. Read more...

Table of Contents

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS CASES