Source: https://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/civil_liability/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 17:48:15+00:00

Document:
Venture Tape Corp. v. McGills Glass, No. 07-1186. It’s tape v. glass. Tape won in a trademark infringement suit, after both parties moved for summary judgment. The underlying issue was “likelihood of confusion” (as you can see, I don’t really understand intellectual property). The First reminds us that “Actual confusion” isn’t the substantive law, and the fact that Glass was trying to lure customers using Tape’s mark allows for summary judgment.
There are some difficult issues. Glass asked for a jury trial. The court conducted a remedies hearing, which Glass participated in. The First says they waived that.
The First goes through whether the infringement was “willful” or not. Anyway, the First affirms an award of an equitable share of the Glass’s profits, noting that once Glass showed Tape’s sales, it fell on tape to show what wasn’t attributable to the infringement.
The First also affirms an award of attorneys fees because this is an “exceptional” case. The First says that this isn’t an abuse of discretion. The award of fees is about half the underlying amount of the profits, but because there are no personal injuries involved, none of the “tort reform” caravan will be whining.
Collazo v. Nicholson, No. 06-2678 (7/24/08). This is an age discrimination complaint seeking damages for mental and emotional distress against the VA. While it was booted on summary judgment, the First says affirms on an alternate ground, saying that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634. After going out of its way to show why it thinks that plaintiff is a jerk (which is really impossible to verify one way or the other), the First says that damages for mental and emotional distress are not available. Only pay and equitable relief.
US v. Innarelli, No. 06-2400. After pleading guilty to a “land-flipping” scheme (which seems to be more like a mortgage scheme) that was perpetrated by, amongst other people, a lawyer. But, the First clarifies some areas of the guidelines that I thought were clear.
Where one starts with a base level of six under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 (a)(2), one goes to the table in that guideline. 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(A) says that for purposes of the guidelines, this should be the greater of “intended loss” (or “the objectively reasonable expectation of a person in his position at the time he perpetrated the fraud, not on his subjective intentions or hopes”) and “actual loss.” But this is not how to calculate restitution amounts under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act ("MVRA") 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a), (c). The purpose of restitution, the First notes, is not to punish, but to make victims whole. Their emotional hurt and stuff like that doesn’t factor into it. So, it gets remanded for that recalculation.
On top of that, the sentence was reasonable.
CMI Capital v. Gonzalez-Toro, No. 06-2623. It seems that many oppositions to motions for summary judgment do not specifically counter the statements of facts as required by local rules. This is called the “anti-ferret” rule.
Procedurally, the First points out that if a District Court deems facts admitted, it is bound by that order, unless the order is an abuse of discretion.
The underlying disputes resolve around the liability of the “conjugal partnership” for certain torts. The First agrees (applying Puerto Rican law) that the torts were committed for the benefit of the partnership. Likewise, liability also attached to the wife, because she didn’t contest many of the facts, which essentially meant that she helped her husband carry out many of the relevant activities.
Havlik v. Johnson & Wales University, No. 07-1879. The First roars back to life. In this case, the plaintiff, a student, claims that a “crime alert” issued by a university pursuant to The Clery Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f) (the Act), which “requires colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to notify their constituent communities of certain reported crimes” was defamatory. The First holds that schools enjoy a “qualified privilege, stemming from its duty under the Act, to publish the crime alert” see Ponticelli v. Mine Safety Appl. Co., 247 A.2d 303, 305-06 (R.I. 1968). It rejects the notion that the Clery Act doesn’t actually impose such a duty based on an analysis of the geographic scope of the act, but the First concludes that what matters is whether the defendant’s ascertainment of his duty to speak was objectively reasonable.
Read on for the god, country, and Apple Day!
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School, No. 06-2596 (10/5/07). This is an elementary-school peer-on-peer sexual harassment case. But, the First holds that the school officials responded to the incidents when reported, and therefore didn’t violate the law. In this case, the police department launched a concurrent investigation and eventually found that the “victim” wasn’t credible.
The First explains that Title IX “does not make an educational institution the insurer either of a student's safety or of a parent's peace of mind. Understandably, then, ‘deliberate indifference’ requires more than a showing that the institution's response to harassment was less than ideal.” I always thought this was axiomatic.
The First, however, rejects the District Court’s rationale that “Title IX liability only attaches after an institution receives actual notice of harassment and the institution subsequently "causes" the victim to be subjected to additional harassment.” Instead, the First says that the inquiry must be broader, and the court must inquire as to whether the school’s response was adequate, though some deference must be paid to the school’s balancing of its duties to everyone (including the accused).
The First bifurcates its 1983 analysis into a “deprivation of constitutional rights” and “deprivation of statutory rights” analysis. You should look below the fold.
Here’s a copy of a motion to recuse four justices of the Texas Supreme Court, on account of what the mover describes as a defense bias in tort cases. Comments, anyone?
An alert reader (that has nothing to do with the case) points me to this unpublished case from the Federal Circuit. As avid readers may know, “Bolduc v. US, No. 03-2081, holds that District Courts lack jurisdiction under the FTCA for what amounts to a case of mistaken identity resulting in the plaintiffs spending eight years in prison” (our coverage from March 23, 2005 here).” Today, in an unpublished decision, a Federal Circuit panel splits (what’s up with that?) as to whether a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495 (damages for false imprisonment) and 2513 for his unjust conviction and imprisonment is timely by six days. Read the case. This guy gets no satisfaction anywhere. All of his arguments as to why the statute of limitations are tolled, or the case was constructively transferred are rejected. But, the dissent argues that the record isn’t clear as to exactly why his conviction was reversed.
Anderson v. Comcast Corporation, Nos. 06-2165, 06-2203. Remember Kristian v. Comcast, Corp., 446 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2006) (our coverage here), which held that although Comcast could bring disputes to arbitration, various parts of their Comcast-customer agreement were severed (including the one prohibiting class actions) because they violated public policy? Well, the issue comes up again. This time, a plaintiff came to the state court and the action was removed to District Court, and the District court only compelled arbitration after “severing provisions in the arbitration agreement prohibiting attorney's fees, double or treble damages and a class action remedy in the arbitral forum. It also specified that ‘the arbitrator will have the power to determine the validity and applicability of the agreement's one-year statute of limitations.’” The First decides, however, that it is the court that will decide the statute of limitations period, and those statutes of limitations periods are invalid as to Massachusetts’ unfair trade statute.
Turn off the TV and keep reading.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 § 3663
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1092
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.