ETHICS & ATTORNEY'S FEES CASES

• Latin Am. Music Co v. Archdiocese of San
• Decorte v. Jordan
• Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. v. Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corp.
• Buytendorp v. Extendicare Health Servs., Inc.
• Nisus Corp. v. Perma-Chink Sys., Inc.
• Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, August 16, 2007
Latin Am. Music Co v. Archdiocese of San, No. 05-2806
In a music copyright infringement suit, judgment against plaintiff-publisher is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there were material facts in dispute concerning the assignment of a copyright in a song; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the fees for a special master equally among the parties; 3) dismissal of plaintiff's remaining claims, counterclaims and defenses as a sanction for failure to comply with a court order was not extreme under the circumstances and did not consitute an abuse of discretion; and 4) the court was unable to determine whether the record contained sufficient undisputed evidence of infringing acts to warrant summary judgment on a third party defendant's infringement claim. Read more...

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 15, 2007
Decorte v. Jordan, No. 05-31042
In a Title VII action against a district attorney alleging intentional discrimination on the basis of race against non-attorney staff in his office, a jury verdict and damages awarded against him in his official capacity is affirmed and remanded for a determination of attorney's fees where: 1) sufficient evidence supported the verdict; 2) the district court did not err in either admitting EEOC determinations or in ruling a cultural-diversity report constituted an affirmative-action plan; 3) admission of compensatory-damages testimony was not reversible error; 4) sufficient evidence supports such damages; 5) statements by plaintiffs' counsel during closing argument were harmless error; and 6) plaintiffs should be awarded appellate attorney's fees. Read more...

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 16, 2007
Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. v. Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corp., No. 06-2930
In proceedings arising from a suit against Volvo alleging unfair price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) and a failure to deal in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner under state law, denial of Volvo's motion to award as costs certain supersedeas bond premium payments it incurred in appealing a jury verdict for plaintiff is affirmed where the district court correctly held it was without authority to award costs in Volvo's favor as it never brought a motion for costs before the Eighth Circuit, and thus, no such order was ever entered to trigger a right to recover any Rule 39(e) costs in the district court. Read more...

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 17, 2007
Buytendorp v. Extendicare Health Servs., Inc., No. 06-1717/1725
In an action brought against plaintiff's employer raising a claim of retaliation under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, summary judgment for the employer is affirmed where: 1) a refusal-to-participate claim based on plaintiff's silence at a meeting was meritless; 2) assuming plaintiff met good faith reporting requirements, her employer proffered legitimate reasons for her termination, which plaintiff failed to show were pretextual; and 3) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a motion to amend a scheduling order to permit a motion for sanctions against plaintiff's counsel. Read more...

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, August 13, 2007
Nisus Corp. v. Perma-Chink Sys., Inc., No. 2006-1592, 2007-1142
Absent a court's invocation of its authority to punish persons before it for misconduct, actions by the court such as making adverse findings as to the credibility of a witness or including critical language in a court opinion regarding the conduct of a third party do not give nonparties the right to appeal either from the ultimate judgment in the case or from the particular court statement or finding that they find objectionable. Read more...

California Appellate Districts, August 13, 2007
Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. B189031
In class action brought by drivers against defendant-FedEx regarding work-related expenses, a finding that the drivers are employees, the order certifying the class, and a finding that attorney's fees are recoverable are affirmed, however, the fee award is reversed as the amount must be reconsidered. Read more...