LATEST SUMMARIES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
• Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Lohn

ATTORNEY'S FEES, ETHICS & PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, WORKERS' COMPENSATION
• Tahara v. Matson Terminals, Inc.

CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE
• Aguilera v. Baca

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PER CURIAM, SENTENCING
• US v. Lococo

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, IMMIGRATION LAW
• Arteaga v. Mukasey

ETHICS & DISCIPLINARY CODE, ETHICS & PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
• Gadda v. State Bar of California

LATEST SUMMARIES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Lohn, No. 05-35638
In a dispute over whether the federal government's policy for listing killer whales under the Endangered Species Act is invalid, a district court order is vacated where the case was moot because, since the district court's decision, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a proposed rule that recommended listing the whale as a threatened species and ultimately issued a final rule listing it as an endangered species. (Superceding opinion) Read more...

ATTORNEY'S FEES, ETHICS & PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Tahara v. Matson Terminals, Inc., No. 05-17306
An amount of attorney's fees awarded to plaintiff for work his attorney allegedly performed to secure a late payment award under section 914(f) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) from plaintiff's former employer is affirmed where the district court properly excluded fees not available under section 928(c) of the LHWCA and appropriately exercised its discretion in excluding duplicative fees. Read more...

CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE
Aguilera v. Baca, No. 05-56617
In an action brought by L.A. county sheriff's deputies against the sheriff, the department, supervisory officers, and internal affairs investigators, alleging plaintiffs were improperly detained at a station and later punished for failing to give non-privileged statements in connection with an internal criminal civil rights investigation into of their possible misconduct while on duty, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where defendants-supervisors did not violate the deputies' Fourth, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendment rights. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PER CURIAM, SENTENCING
US v. Lococo, No. 05-50550
Appeals from defendants' convictions and sentences for conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine are dismissed in part and otherwise affirmed over challenges regarding: 1) the government's application for the wiretap on which its case was built; 2) prosecutorial misconduct; and 3) the constitutionality of the sentences. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, IMMIGRATION LAW
Arteaga v. Mukasey, No. 05-70368
El Salvadorian native's petition for review of a decision dismissing his appeal from an order finding him removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony and of an offense related to a controlled substance is dismissed in part and denied in part where: 1) petitioner did not qualify for withholding of removal as a member of a "social group" based on his indelible tattoos indicating his gang membership and his potential persecution by rival gang members; 2) the court lacked jurisdiction over the issue of whether a state conviction constituted an aggravated felony; 3) he is not a national of the United States; 4) he is not entitled to relief under the CAT; and 5) an IJ who presided over his hearing was not biased. Read more...

ETHICS & DISCIPLINARY CODE, ETHICS & PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Gadda v. State Bar of California, No. 06-15344
In a disbarred attorney's suit against the State Bar of California and various other parties challenging his disbarment and the Bar's ability to collect disbarment costs from him, grant of defendants' motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings is affirmed where the retroactive application of the 2003 amendment to section 6080.10 of the California Business and Professions Code violates neither the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Ex Post Facto Clause. Read more...