Wasserman's Appellate Summaries
October 6, 2000
By Lawrence Wasserman, Esq.
Netlaw Libraries welcomes back attorney Lawrence Wasserman as a new website contributor. We are pleased to announce that his guest column, which synopsizes the recent decisions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court, the six California appellate districts, as well as some of the recent and interesting decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, will be appearing as a regular feature for members and guests visiting the Netlaw Libraries website. We hope that you will find it to be a good way to start your legal research day and welcome your comments and criticisms regarding the column.
KEEPING CURRENT, October 6, 2000
2 NEW APPELLATE CASES
CASES OF PARTICULAR INTEREST:
* If you enjoy complex corporate relations and applicable law as applied by the federal courts read Kona Enterprises v. Estate of Bishop. A summary does not do this case justice.
O'Laughlin v. County Of Orange
Case No. 98-56774
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
BANKRUPTCY-DISCHARGE OF CLAIM FOR PRE-BANKRUPTCY VIOLATION OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT-ALLOWANCE OF CLAIM FOR POST BANKRUPTCY VIOLATION OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT
O'Laughlin worked for Orange County as a registered nurse in a psychiatric emergency facility. Her arm was injured twice by violent patients. Surgery following each injury and she has lost substantial use of the arm because of nerve damage. In June 1994 she was released to return to work with the restriction that she not work with violent patients. Every future medical evaluation through October 1996 stated that she should not return to work where she might be in contact with violent patients. The County kept telling her to go back to work in her former job, without any accommodation. O'Laughlin refused. Orange County filed for bankruptcy in December 1994. O'laughlin sued for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court dismissed, on the grounds that the claim was discharged in bankruptcy.
HELD: The Bankruptcy code provides that: the debtor is discharged from all debts as of the time when the plan is confirmed. A debt is defined as liability on a claim. A claim is a right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured. O'Laughlin alleged violations of the ADA both before and after the date of discharge. The district court's dismissal of O'Laughlin's claim was proper insofar as it relates to the County's pre-discharge violations. Dismissal of her claim was improper as to an alleged post-discharge violation, although the post-discharge violation was a continuation of the County's allegedly illegal pre-discharge behavior. Reversed and affirmed in part and remanded.
Kona Enterprises v. Estate of Bishop
Case No. 99-16295
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
CIVIL-ATTORNEY FEES-DETERMINATION OF PREVAILING PARTY-CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE IN STATE LAW WHILE MATTER ON APPEAL-ALLOCATION OF ATTORNEY FEES BETWEEN ACTIONS IN ASSUMPSIT AND NON-ASSUMPSIT
Kona owed BancBoston on a loan, which the Bank was pressing for payment or security. The Bishop Estate arranged for letters of credit and secured pledges of Kona stock as security. The Bishop Estate advised Kona to reject a loan proposal, since it could secure a better loan. When the extensions of the loans could not be repaid Bishop exercised its rights to the stock under the pledges made. The only asset of Kona was transferred to other corporations. Kona and individual plaintiffs sued. Its claim sought $4 million in damages as well as costs, interest, and attorneys' fees based on five causes of action: (1)breach of fiduciary duty; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) interference with corporate opportunity and economic advantage; (4) interference with corporate governance; and (5) constructive trust. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for incomplete diversity. This decision was reversed in part and remanded. The claims were again dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, since Kona was no longer a shareholder after Bishop exercised its right to the pledged stock. Substantial attorney fees were awarded against plaintiffs.
HELD: A federal court sitting in diversity applies the law of the forum state regarding an award of attorneys' fees. Under Hawaii law that an action in the nature of assumpsit includes all possible contract claims. Assumpsit is a common law form of action which allows for the recovery of damages for the non-performance of a contract, either express or implied, written or verbal, as well as quasi contractual obligations. Under then-prevailing Hawaii law, in a suit with mixed claims the existence of contract claims results in a finding that the action is in the nature of assumpsit unless those contract claims are merely decorative and not germane to the genuine dispute being litigated. While this appeal was pending Hawaii's Supreme Court held that an allocation is required when there are assumpsit and non assumpsit claims. In light of the change in Hawaii's law effected the matter was remanded for the district court to determine whether each of plaintiffs' claims is in the nature of assumpsit. Since the district court dismissed plaintiffs' action with prejudice and entered judgment for the defendants, they are deemed to be prevailing parties. Affirmed and reversed in part and remanded.
*Change in law, interesting case, or just watch out!
For the complete California cases, visitors can click on here to go to
STATE DAILY OPINIONS
For the complete 9th Circuit cases, visitors can click on here to go to
FEDERAL RESOURCES
Wasserman's Archived Appellate Summaries
Back to Netlaw Libraries' Home Page