LATEST SUMMARIES

BANKRUPTCY LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, REMEDIES, SECURITIES LAW, TAX LAW
• Donell v. Kowell

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, GOVERNMENT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
• Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep't

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, GOVERNMENT LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE
• Pesnell v. Arsenault

CIVIL PROCEDURE, GOVERNMENT LAW, HEALTH LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
• Mangano v. US

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, IMMIGRATION LAW, PER CURIAM, TAX LAW, WHITE COLLAR CRIME
• Kawashima v. Mukasey

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING
• US v. Byun

LATEST SUMMARIES

BANKRUPTCY LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, REMEDIES, SECURITIES LAW, TAX LAW
Donell v. Kowell, No. 06-55544
In a suit arising to recover gains made by defendant, an innocent investor, from a Ponzi scheme, a judgment requiring him to disgorge his profits as fraudulent transfers under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act is affirmed where the circuit court: 1) adopted the largely uniform analysis used for applying the UFTA to allow recovery from investors in a Ponzi scheme, and describes a two-step process for determining the existence and amount of liability; 2) found there was no error in the district court's application of such analysis; 3) rejected arguments that courts should not be allowed to require innocent investors to disgorge net profits; and 4) declined to permit good faith investors to claim offsets for taxes or other expenses paid in connection with receipt and management of income from a Ponzi scheme. Read more...

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, GOVERNMENT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep't, No. 05-56214
In an action brought by plaintiff, African-American police officer employed by defendant-city, alleging he experienced race-based discrimination and retaliation, dismissal of plaintiff's 81-page complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8 and subsequent dismissal of the case after an amended complaint was filed are vacated where: 1) neither complaint warranted dismissal under Rule 8, which sets forth that it is the right and duty of a plaintiff initiating a case to file a "short and plain statement of the claim"; and 2) although each complaint set forth excessively detailed factual allegations, they were coherent, well-organized, and stated legally viable claims. Read more...

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, GOVERNMENT LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE
Pesnell v. Arsenault, No. 04-56721
In a matter arising from a dispute with the government over ownership of two million acres of land in California, raising RICO and other constitutional claims, Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of plaintiff's action against federal employees as procedurally barred is reversed where: 1) district court erred in dismissing all of plaintiff's claims on the basis of the judgment bar rule; and 2) the circuit court's opinion in a prior Arizona action did not resolve the issue of timeliness. However, denial of a motion to recuse the district judge is affirmed. (Superseding opinion) Read more...

CIVIL PROCEDURE, GOVERNMENT LAW, HEALTH LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
Mangano v. US, No. 05-17334
In a suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for emotional distress and other injuries allegedly suffered in connection with plaintiff's termination from the San Francisco Veterans Administration Medical Center, dismissal of the suit is affirmed where plaintiff's tort claims are preempted by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) since Congress amended the CSRA to apply selectively to part-time physicians employed by the VA. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, IMMIGRATION LAW, PER CURIAM, TAX LAW, WHITE COLLAR CRIME
Kawashima v. Mukasey, No. 04-74313, 05-74408
Japanese natives' petitions for review of removal orders are granted in part where: 1) under circuit precedent, because the statutes to which petitioners pled guilty to violating do not require proof of any particular monetary loss, the circuit court does not examine the record of their convictions to determine whether they necessarily pled guilty to causing a loss in excess of $10,000; and 2) the government failed to show that petitioners' convictions are aggravated felonies under the categorical approach, and thus they are not removable. (Superseding opinion) Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING
US v. Byun, No. 07-10254
In proceedings arising after defendant plead guilty to "importation into the United States of any alien for the purpose of prostitution", a determination that she had committed a "sex offense" within the meaning of the Walsh Act and was therefore subject to the Act's registration requirements is affirmed where defendant's offense was a "specified offense against a minor" and therefore a "sex offense" within the meaning of the Act. Read more...