ETHICS & ATTORNEY'S FEES CASES

• B. Fernandez & Hnos., Inc. v. Kellogg USA, Inc.
• Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc.
• J.P. v. County Sch. Bd. of Hanover
• Halim v. Great Gatsby's Auction Gallery, Inc.
• PR Investments & Speciality Retailers, Inc. v. State of Texas

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 14, 2008
B. Fernandez & Hnos., Inc. v. Kellogg USA, Inc., No. 07-1317
In a breach of contract suit involving the distribution of cereal products, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where there was an indispensable party to the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 whose joinder would destroy complete diversity. The district court also correctly denied costs and fees. Read more...

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 14, 2008
Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 06-3147
In case involving claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where defendant debt collector failed to give the recipient of a debt collection letter covered by the FDCPA notice that she has thirty days to mail a dispute notice, as opposed to defendant receiving either payment or a notice dispute at defendant's office within 30 days to avoid further action. Read more...

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 14, 2008
J.P. v. County Sch. Bd. of Hanover, No. 06-2068, 07-1320
In case involving autistic child arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the determination that an individualized education program for the boy was not adequate and that defendant school board is obligated to pay costs of private school is vacated as the district court failed to give the required deference to the state hearing officer’s decision. Read more...

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 14, 2008
Halim v. Great Gatsby's Auction Gallery, Inc., No. 07-1615
In a suit alleging that items plaintiff purchased at defendant's auction did not match the descriptions in the auction item catalog, a district court order enforcing an arbitration award in favor of defendant is affirmed over plaintiff's arguments that: 1) the district court improperly treated defendant's motion to dismiss on the basis of a binding arbitration clause as a motion to stay; 2) the district judge erred in finding that defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate; and 3) the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law by declining to formally rule on a discovery dispute and by failing to issue an award containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The imposition of Rule 11 sanctions on plaintiff's former attorney is affirmed where the court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal since the attorney failed to file a notice of appeal on his own behalf. Read more...

Supreme Court of Texas, February 15, 2008
PR Investments & Speciality Retailers, Inc. v. State of Texas, No. 04-0431
A condemning authority's decision to change the traffic-flow design, revising a road's signs and stripes but not its intended use, does not divest a trial court of jurisdiction over a trial de novo in proceedings under Chapter 21 of the Texas Property Code. Read more...