Federal Government Is A “Person” Amenable To Service Of A Rule 45 Subpoena

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected the assertion by the federal government that it is not subject to Rule 45 because it is not a “person.”

In Yousuf v. Samantar, No. 05-5197, 2006 WL 1651050 (D.C. Cir. June 16, 2006), plaintiffs served a third-party subpoena on the State Department seeking certain documents relevant to their tort claims against another individual. The government objected that Rule 45(a)(1)(C) authorizes service of a subpoena only upon a “person” and that it was not within the scope of that word as used in the rules.

After an exhaustive analysis of the government’s statutory construction arguments, the court held that litigants indeed may serve third-party subpoenas upon the government because the framers of the rules intended the term “person” to include non-natural persons including the U.S. government.

Administrative Closure Not Final Disposition Allowing Appeal

Appellate courts sometimes get very technical about the finality requirement for appeals.

In CitiFinancial Corp. v. Harrison, No. 04-60979, 2006 WL 1644828 (5th Cir. June 15, 2006), a financial services consumer brought claims in state court concerning a contract that included an arbitration clause. CitiFinancial removed the case.

While it was pending before one judge, CitiFinancial filed its own lawsuit before another judge seeking an order to compel arbitration and to stay the first case. The court granted that motion and the judge in the original case complied, “administratively closing” the case that was now stayed.

The consumer appealed the order staying the first case and compelling arbitration. The Fifth Circuit concluded that under normal circumstances it has jurisdiction over an appeal from an order compelling arbitration because such an order essentially is final. Here, however, part of the dispute was still ongoing in the original court. The Fifth Circuit ruled that the “administrative closure” did not count as ending the case, because such closures merely stay the case while removing the case from the court’s active docket for statistical purposes, without permanent dismissal.

Federal Arbitration Act Does Not Authorize Nationwide Service Of Process.

In Dynegy Midstream Services, LP v. Trammochem, 451 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. June 13, 2006), several parties arbitrated a dispute before a New York panel of arbitrators. One of the parties sought to subpoena Dynegy, a Texas-based third-party, and the panel served a subpoena for documents to be produced in Houston.

After Dynegy ignored the subpoena, the interested party successfully moved to compel compliance with the subpoena in New York federal court, and Dynegy appealed.

The Second Circuit held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not authorize nationwide service of process. While it empowers arbitrators to “summon in writing any person to attend before them” and to bring documents, it also requires that service of such a summons be made in the same manner as a Rule 45 subpoena. In this case, the New York panel could not have served the Houston company under the geographic limitations of Rule 45, and the district court lacked personal jurisdiction.

Appellate Court Affirming Jury Verdict Still Must State Reasoning

The Texas Supreme Court has remanded an appeal for preparation of a more informative opinion.

In Gonzalez v. McAllen Medical Center, Inc., No. 03-0939, 2006 WL 1562847 (Tex. June 9, 2006), a jury rejected the claims of medical negligence plaintiffs. On appeal, the court affirmed the verdict and disagreed with plaintiffs’ argument about the sufficiency of the evidence. However, its rejection of that argument in a single sentence that the evidence was sufficient without stating any reasons why.

In Texas, an appellate court reversing a jury verdict on sufficiency grounds must detail the evidence and clearly state why the jury’s findings were factually insufficient. Even though in affirming a verdict a much lower level of detail is needed, the Supreme Court held that the court still must provide the “basic reasons” for the decision, and not merely recite that the evidence was sufficient.

U.S. Supreme Court Holds No Private RICO Action Available For Tax Underpayment

The U.S. Supreme Court has limited the reach of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in certain private disputes.

In Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 126 S. Ct. 1991 (June 5, 2006), a steel supplier brought RICO claims against a competitor that it alleged had unfairly obtained market share by not charging its customers a state tax that plaintiff did charge, thereby undercutting plaintiff’s prices.

Reversing the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court held that a RICO plaintiff must allege some direct relation between the injury alleged and the injurious conduct at issue, and that here the direct victim of the tax fraud was the State of New York. The court rejected the claim here as too attenuated to satisfy the fundamental proximate cause requirement.

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Presumption Favoring Patent Infringement Injunction

The Federal Circuit, which is often the court of last resort in patent disputes because the U.S. Supreme Court accepts so few cases for review, has developed a line of authority under which plaintiffs who establish patent validity and infringement enjoyed a presumption in favor of injunctive relief “absent exceptional circumstances.”

However, in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., No. 05-130 (May 15, 2006), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the four-factor test traditionally applied by courts of equity in deciding whether or not to grant injunctive relief applied equally to disputes arising under the Patent Act.

Regardless of the fact that a case involves alleged patent infringement, a district court should not issue an injunction unless it finds (1) that plaintiff has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

State Taxpayers Lack Standing To Challenge State Tax Or Spending Decisions

The U.S. Supreme Court historically has restricted the standing of plaintiffs suing the federal government to invoke Article III “case or controversy” jurisdiction merely based on their status as taxpayers.

In DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, No. 04-1704 (May 15, 2006), the Court extended that jurisprudence to cases involving state taxpayers suing state governments to challenge state tax or spending decisions.

Moreover, while the Court has permitted municipal residents to sue municipalities to challenge the illegal use of public funds by the municipal corporation, the Court held that such precedents did not confer standing on municipal residents to challenge state tax or spending decisions.

U.S. Supreme Court Curtails Probate Exception To Federal Jurisdiction

As reported in January 2005, the Ninth Circuit held in In re Marshall, 392 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2004), that the probate exception to federal jurisdiction applied in Bankruptcy Court. However, the Supreme Court has now reversed that decision as extending the probate exception too broadly.

The Ninth Circuit read the probate exception to exclude from federal jurisdiction “not only direct challenges to a will or trust, but also questions which would ordinarily be decided by a probate court in determining the validity of the decedent’s estate planning instrument.” The court also held that a State’s vesting of exclusive jurisdiction over probate matters in a special court (in this case the Texas Probate Court) strips federal courts of jurisdiction to entertain any “probate related matter,” including claims respecting “tax liability, debt, gift, [or] tort.”

However, the Supreme Court found that this broad reading lacked any basis in statute or Supreme Court precedent. Marshall v. Marshall, No. 04-1544 (U.S. May 1, 2006).

Clarifying its juris­prudence in this area, the Court said the probate exception only reserves to state probate courts the probate or annulment of a will and the administration of a decedent’s estate, and precludes federal courts from disposing of property that is in the custody of a state probate court. The probate exception does not bar federal courts from adjudicating matters outside those confines that otherwise are within federal jurisdiction.

Tobacco Company Punitive Damages Exceeding Single-Digit Ratio Upheld

The California intermediate appellate court has upheld a significant punitive damages award against Philip Morris.

In Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., No. B164398 (Cal. App. (2d Dist.) Apr. 21, 2006), the jury awarded a smoker $850,000 in compensatory damages and $28 billion in punitive damages based on findings of defective design, intentional and negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment about the health effects of smoking, and findings that Philip Morris was guilty of malice, fraud, or oppression with respect to each of plaintiffs’ claims. The trial court reduced the punitive award to $28 million (about 33 times compensatory damages) on remittitur.

The appellate court found that a sufficient record was presented to the jury of extensive efforts by Philip Morris to mislead the public about the adverse effects of smoking, and that it was not necessary to prove that defendant made any specific misrepresentation directly to the plaintiff when it had every reason to expect its misrepresentations to find plaintiff indirectly.

The court acknowledged that the California Supreme Court in Simon v. San Paolo U.S. Holding Co., Inc., 35 Cal.4th 1159 (2005), read State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), as establishing a presumption that a ratio of punitive to compensatory damages greater than a single digit violates due process, but left open that in cases of “extreme reprehensibility” a greater award might be appropriate. Here, the court found this standard satisfied based on the record, and upheld the award.

American Subpoena In Connection With European Proceedings Quashed As Attempt To Circumvent Foreign Rules

Microsoft Corporation recently attempted to use a subpoena issued through Massachusetts federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) to obtain certain documents from competitor Novell Inc. for use in connection with European antitrust proceedings. In re Application of Microsoft Corp., No. 06-10061-MLW (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2006).

The European regulator found that Microsoft failed to comply with an earlier order, and it provided a set of documents to Microsoft in support of its finding. Microsoft subpoenaed Novell to obtain additional documents not provided by the regulator, but the subpoena was quashed.

The federal court relied heavily on the views of the European regulator, who took the position that the use of American third-party discovery techniques circumvented the balance struck under the European system designed to avoid a chilling effect on third-party cooperativeness in antitrust investigations. Finding that § 1782(a) was designed to aid foreign tribunals, not interfere with them, the court refused to enforce the subpoena.

Non-ISP Lacks Standing To Challenge Party Seeking Identity Of Internet Poster

As computer users have embraced the apparent anonymity of the Internet, businesses who find themselves the targets of online disparagement have attempted to sue the responsible parties for defamation. To do so, they often bring third-party discovery against the Internet service provider (“ISP”) to reveal the identity of the account holder who posted the defamatory remarks.

In Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Doe, No. H028699 (Cal. App. (6th Dist) Apr. 18, 2006), the court observed that in a typical such case, the anonymous party normally steps forward to oppose the disclosure of his or her identity, and clearly has standing to do so. In Matrixx, however, the plaintiff was able to trace users who posted allegedly defamatory comments on a Web site to a hedge fund called Barbary Coast Capital Management, and in a deposition the principal of that company refused to answer direct questions about the identity of the posters.

The California court held that the witness in this case had no protected interest in the matter and lacked standing to assert the First Amendment rights of the anonymous posters. The court ordered the witness to answer plaintiff’s questions.

U.S. Supreme Court Allows Citation To Unpublished Opinions

One of the procedural issues that has been debated in the federal courts for many years involves the citation of so-called “unpublished” opinions.

The federal courts of appeal have disposed of many appeals with abbreviated opinions that are not published in the official reports (i.e., West’s Federal Reporter), and have in varying degrees prohibited the citation of such opinions. However, those opinions have long been available through Lexis and Westlaw, and in recent years through the courts’ own Web sites.

On April 12, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court approved new Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 to allow citation of unpublished opinions. The new rule, which becomes effective on December 1, 2006 unless Congress intervenes, prohibits federal courts from restricting the citation of federal unpublished opinions released beginning on January 1, 2007. If a party cites an unpublished opinion, it must furnish copies along with its brief. The new rule only speaks to citation rules, and does not prohibit courts from assigning such opinions different precedential weight.

Seventh Circuit Retracts Higher Standard For Diversity Jurisdiction

In Meridian Security Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, No. 05-2855 (7th Cir. Mar. 22, 2006), the Seventh Circuit examined and curtailed the development of a line of cases that had misconstrued a 1993 case to raise the barrier to diversity jurisdiction.

Shaw v. Dow Brands, Inc., 994 F.3d 364, 366 (7th Cir. 1993), had stated that defendants seeking removal must prove that they meet the jurisdictional amount through “proof to a reasonable probability that jurisdiction exists.” This language has since been construed within the Seventh Circuit to mean that uncertainty about the jurisdictional amount must be resolved against the removing defendants.

In Meridian, the court overruled that interpretation, which has not been adopted outside of the circuit. The court held that a proponent of federal jurisdiction must, if material jurisdictional facts are contested, prove those facts by a preponderance of the evidence. Once those facts have been proven, federal jurisdiction is satisfied and any uncertainty about whether the plaintiff will be able to prove its substantive claim has no effect on jurisdiction.

Texas Restricts Voir Dire Questions About Weight Jurors Will Give Relevant Evidence

The Texas legislature has guaranteed through statute that jury trials shall be conducted by panels of impartial jurors free from bias or prejudice. And of course one of the purposes of voir dire is to attempt to exclude jurors who are biased or prejudiced. In interpreting that rule, the Texas Supreme Court has adopted a general rule that it is improper to ask prospective jurors what their verdict would be if certain facts were proved.

In Hyundai Motor Co. v. Vasquez, No. 03-0914 (Tex. Mar. 10, 2006), the court extended that holding to prohibit voir dire questions addressed to the weight a juror would give to a relevant piece of evidence.

In this case, the court reversed an intermediate appellate court that had found the trial court to have abused its discretion in refusing to permit plaintiff’s counsel to ask prospective jurors whether the fact that plaintiff was not wearing her seat belt would have been determinative of their verdict.

Award For Discovery Violation Not Successful Outcome Supporting Attorneys’ Fees

A plaintiff who brings a “successful action to enforce” liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees. But sometimes the question is how one defines success.

In Dechert v. Cadle Co., No. 04-4213 (7th Cir. Mar. 16, 2006), the district court awarded $1,000 to plaintiff for discovery violations by the defendant, but then the plaintiff abandoned his statutory claims under the FDCPA. Ultimately, the district court awarded $60,000 in attorneys’ fees and the defendant appealed.

The appellate court revered the fee award, finding that the FDCPA claim on the merits was never proven and nothing was awarded under plaintiffs’ substantive claim. The award of a discovery sanction was insufficient to support characterizing the case as a “successful action” under the statute and trigger fee-shifting.

No Sovereign Immunity From Bankruptcy Trustee’s Preference Action Against State

In Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, No. 04-885 (U.S. Jan. 23, 2006), the U.S. Supreme Court considered the intersection between the federal law of bankruptcy and the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

In this case, a book-seller transacted business with a state university before filing for bankruptcy. The court-appointed liquidating trustee commenced proceedings in Bankruptcy Court to avoid and recover alleged preferential transfers made to state parties when the debtor was insolvent. The state parties moved to dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity, but the motions were denied.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that Congress properly abrogated the states’ sovereign immunity in the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 106(a)), although the majority also held that the enactment of that particular statute was not necessary in this case because the Bankruptcy Court already was authorized to conduct preference avoidance proceedings involving state creditors.

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Failure To Renew Rule 50(a) Motion Waives Appeal

Parties to a federal jury trial may attempt to avoid having the jury decide particular issues pursuant to Rule 50. Under Rule 50(a), a party may file a motion for judgment on particular issues as a matter of law after the close of the evidence. If the court denies the motion and the issues proceed to jury verdict, the party has ten days to renew its motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) and/or to move for a new trial under Rule 59(e).

It turns out that renewing the motion for judgment as a matter of law is the only way to preserve the issue for appeal.

In Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., No. 04-597 (U.S. Jan. 23, 2006), the U.S. Supreme Court held that if a party fails to renew its motion after the jury reaches its verdict, that party waives the right to appeal the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court cited precedent finding that courts of appeals only have jurisdiction to overturn a jury verdict if the appellant asked the district court to do so first.

Federally Chartered Banks Are Citizens Only Of Their Main Branch’s State

A party’s citizenship is a critical issue when federal jurisdiction is being claimed on the basis of diversity. While it is well-settled that, for example, a corporation is a citizen of both the state of its incorporation and the state in which it has its principal place of business, and that limited partnerships are citizens of every state in which each partner is a citizen, the law was not settled concerning national banks.

Congress attempted to provide the answer by statute, but the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1348 (national banks deemed citizens of the state “in which they are respectively located”) has caused a split in the circuits.

In Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, No. 04-1186 (U.S. Jan. 17, 2006), the Court held that Congress intended that a national bank be a citizen only of the state in which its main branch, as specified in the charter, is located. The Court rejected the Fourth Circuit’s position that national banks be deemed citizens of each state in which they have any branch.

Supreme Court to Address Whether Experts' Fees Included In Fee Award

A number of federal statutes permit the district court to award attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party. In Murphy v. Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 402 F.3d 332 (2d Cir. 2005), the court allowed the award not only of attorneys’ fees but also the fees of an expert “educational consultant” under the fee-shifting provisions of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted the school district’s petition for certiorari, limited solely to the question of whether the statute allowing the court to “award reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs” to the prevailing party also allows the award of experts’ fees. Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, No. 05-18 (Jan. 5, 2006).

Ninth Circuit Upholds Long-Arm Jurisdiction From Obtaining Foreign Court Orders

A recent Ninth Circuit opinion considered whether long-arm jurisdiction can be triggered through a party’s bringing foreign court proceedings against an American citizen.

In Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, No. 01-17424 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2006), the popular Internet company Yahoo! brought an action in California federal court seeking a declaration that several orders entered against it in France were of no force and effect. The defendants had obtained orders from a French court finding that Yahoo! had permitted its users to use the site to sell Nazi memorabilia in violation of French law, and requiring Yahoo! to set up filters to prevent users in France from browsing the offending pages.

Eight of the eleven judges on the Ninth Circuit panel agreed that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the French defendants. Applying principles of long-arm jurisdiction, the majority concluded that the defendants “purposefully availed” themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in California and/or “purposefully directed” activities with a California party by bringing proceedings against that party in the French courts.