Latest 7 Cases: Ridgeway v. Stryker Corp. (Bankruptcy), Oliva v. United States (Civil Rights), D2 Excavating, Inc. v. Thompson Thrift ...

Trump Swings His Wrecking Ball at Social Security

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

Neil H. Buchanan—UF law professor and economist—dispels some common misunderstandings about the future of Social Security but explains why President Trump’s recent comments are cause for concern. Buchanan explains why, contrary to claims by reporters and politicians, Social Security is not at the brink of insolvency, but points out that if Trump were to permanently eliminate payroll taxes, that would doom the program on which tens of millions of retirees depend.

Read More

Ridgeway v. Stryker Corp.

Docket: 19-30791

Opinion Date: September 2, 2020

Judge: Oldham

Areas of Law: Bankruptcy, Legal Ethics

In 2001-2013, Ridgeway worked for Stryker, which believed that Ridgeway intended to use its confidential business information at his next job. Stryker sued Ridgeway. A jury found that Ridgeway had breached his contractual obligations, breached his fiduciary duty, and violated Michigan’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA) and that the MUTSA violation was willful and malicious for purposes of an award of attorney’s fees. Ridgeway filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The automatic stay caused by the filing of the petition prevented Stryker from making an attorney’s fee request in the Michigan proceedings. Stryker filed a proof of claim for $2,272,369.54, supported by hundreds of pages of time entries; the amount claimed and the corresponding time entries do not just relate to the lawyers’ work on the MUTSA claim. Stryker argued that, under the “Common Core” doctrine, its win on the MUTSA claim entitles it to attorney’s fees for all of its claims. Ridgeway argued that fee recovery under the Common Core doctrine “is reserved for fee awards in civil rights cases.” The bankruptcy court allowed Stryker’s proof of claim, including fees claimed under the Common Core doctrine. The district court and Fifth Circuit affirmed. Ridgeway has not shown that Michigan law requires statutory attorney’s fees to be “proved at trial.” The court upheld the striking of Ridgeway's "Common Core" objection as a sanction. Ridgeway did not comply with a court order to specify to which charges his objection applied.

Oliva v. United States

Docket: 19-50795

Opinion Date: September 2, 2020

Judge: Oldham

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Oliva attempted to enter a VA hospital. The entrance was protected by VA police and metal detectors. While Oliva stood in line for the metal detector, he spoke with an officer. The conversation escalated into a physical altercation. VA police wrestled Oliva to the ground in a chokehold and arrested him. Oliva exhausted his administrative remedies and then sued the federal officers for damages under “Bivens” and sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The security video is inconsistent with Oliva’s account of the facts in certain respects. With respect to the Fourth Amendment claim, the district court held that “this case does not present a new Bivens context” and allowed the claims to proceed. The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for dismissal of the claims against the officers. Bivens claims generally are limited to manacling the plaintiff in front of his family in his home and strip-searching him in violation of the Fourth Amendment; discrimination on the basis of sex by a congressman against a staff person in violation of the Fifth Amendment; and failure to provide medical attention to an asthmatic prisoner in federal custody in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Extending Bivens to new contexts is a “disfavored judicial activity.” This case arose from events at a hospital, not a private home, and involved a metal detector, not a warrantless search. The context is new and no special factors warrant extending Bivens.

D2 Excavating, Inc. v. Thompson Thrift Construction, Inc.

Docket: 19-40745

Opinion Date: September 2, 2020

Judge: Gregg Costa

Areas of Law: Construction Law, Contracts

D2 filed suit for breach of contract, quantum meruit, violations of the Texas prompt pay statute, and to foreclose on a statutory and constitutional lien. Thompson, in turn, alleged that D2 breached the excavation contract between the parties. The district court held in D2's favor on all claims and ordered Thompson to pay for unpaid work and for "excess" excavating work, as well as interest and attorneys' fees. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err by finding that management of the site was so deficient that D2 had to regrade the same areas as many as six times and was unable to complete its work in other parts of the site, justifying D2's cessation of work. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment for the $81,068 in unpaid work and the related prompt payment statute and lien remedies for that breach of contract. However, the court held that neither breach of contract nor quantum meruit allows D2 to recover for "excavation of unanticipated excess soil." Thus, the court reversed the district court's judgment of $257,588.53 for the "excavation of unanticipated excess soil" and rendered judgment for Thompson on those breach of contract and quantum meruit claims. The court remanded for modification of the judgment.

United States v. Aguilar

Docket: 19-40554

Opinion Date: September 2, 2020

Judge: E. Grady Jolly

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the evidence found during the forensic search of his cell phone. After determining that it had jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal, the court held that the border agents had a good faith, reasonable belief that they could search defendant's phone without obtaining a warrant. In this case, the CBP agent knew defendant had attempted to cross the border with two women who were carrying four cans that physical inspection and x-rays revealed to be suspicious; a K-9 unit had alerted the agents to the presence of narcotics in the cans, and defendant had implicated himself as the purchaser of the cans' contents; and thus there was clearly a particularized and objective basis for suspecting defendant of criminal activity.

United States v. Taylor

Docket: 19-30222

Opinion Date: September 2, 2020

Judge: Jacques Loeb Wiener, Jr.

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Taylor pleaded guilty as a felon in possession of firearms. The “offense conduct” section of the PSR includes information about Taylor’s involvement in shootings on August 12 and 13, 2017, and information regarding an August 15, 2017 traffic stop of a vehicle in which Taylor was a passenger during which officers found Taylor in possession of firearms. The PSR also listed four pending state charges, including weapons charges and attempted second-degree murder. The district court imposed a 120-month sentence. The Fifth Circuit remanded the sentence. The district court erred when it attempted to reduce the length of his sentence either by ordering that the sentence should commence on a particular date or by ordering that he be given credit for time served. The attempt was ineffectual; the district court must consider, and state on the record, whether that court would have imposed the same sentence regardless. The sentence was also impermissibly ambiguous because the pronouncement that it “run concurrently with any sentence imposed by state authorities” does not specify with which state sentence or sentences, corresponding to four pending state court charges, the federal sentence will run concurrently.

Edwards v. 4JLJ, LLC

Docket: 19-40553

Opinion Date: September 2, 2020

Judge: Don R. Willett

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against 4JLJ under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that 4JLJ violated the FLSA's overtime wage mandates. Plaintiffs argued that the stage bonus and performance bonus should have been included in the "regular rate" for the purposes of overtime calculation. After the jury's verdict, plaintiffs filed two identical motions for judgment as a matter of law, which were both denied. The district court awarded sanctions to the plaintiffs over a contentious discovery dispute. The Fifth Circuit held that the performance bonuses—but not the stage bonuses—should have been included in the regular rate as a matter of law. In this case, a reasonable jury could not have concluded that 4JLJ maintained discretion over the amount of performance bonuses, and thus the performance bonuses were nondiscretionary under the FLSA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider all relief warranted. The court affirmed the sanctions award, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that 4JLJ's arguments on cross-appeal are unavailing.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. National Labor Relations Board

Docket: 19-60616

Opinion Date: September 2, 2020

Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

The Fifth Circuit denied the union's petition for review and held that Entergy's transmission and distribution dispatchers are "supervisors" and thus excluded from the National Labor Relations Act's collective bargaining protections. The court held that the union waived its argument about dispatchers' assignment power, barring the court's review of the issue. The court also held that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that dispatchers are supervisors because they assign field employees to places using independent judgment. The court rejected the union's challenge to the Board's independent judgment conclusion and held that the Board's most recent decision demonstrates that its decision was based on the complete record, including the evidence that previously led it to the opposite conclusion on dispatchers' supervisory status; the evidence is sufficient to establish that the dispatchers' prioritization decisions involve independent judgment and meet the statutory definition; and the Board did not err when it failed to address the fact that dispatchers do not assess the skills of field employees. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Board's judgment.