The Law Lady. For more info about us, click here. To be added to our email circulation with MUCH, MUCH more law, click here and specify whether you wish to be added to our CRIMINAL, CIVIL, or FEDERAL Recent Decisions of Interest.
Monday, July 9, 2018
Cotton marketing agreements, consumer law, fair credit reporting act, bankruptcy and pork tenderloin medallions with a sage-mustard cream sauce over red bell pepper-porcini mushroom, rosemary garlic risotto
Weakley
v. Eagle Logistics
Dockets:
17-14022, 17-14023
Opinion
Date: June 29, 2018
Judge:
Per Curiam
Areas
of Law: Bankruptcy, Civil Procedure
In
this consolidated appeal, plaintiff alleged that the district court abused its
discretion by dismissing his two lawsuits based on the doctrine of judicial
estoppel as a result of his failure to disclose them in his bankruptcy
proceeding. Applying a two-part test to guide district courts in applying
judicial estoppel, the court held that plaintiff took an inconsistent position
under oath in a separate proceeding and the inconsistent positions were
calculated to make a mockery of the judicial system. In this case, plaintiff
not only failed to include the two lawsuits in his initial bankruptcy filings
but he also failed to include them in any of the six separate amendments that
he made to his schedules and filings during the bankruptcy proceeding.
Plaintiff only disclosed the lawsuits after defendants had relied on
plaintiff's failure to disclose as grounds for dismissal.
Wilcox
v. corrections Corp of America
Docket:
17-11919
Opinion
Date: June 25, 2018
Judges:
TJOFLAT, ROSENBAUM, and BRANCH
Areas
of Law: Civil rights, Employment discrimination, Sexual harassment
Employer
could not be held directly liable for harassing acts of co-employee who was not
plaintiff's supervisor where evidence established that company took prompt
remedial action against the harassing employee -- District court did not err in
granting judgment as matter of law for employer notwithstanding jury's
favorable verdict and award of damages to plaintiff
Felts
v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Docket:
16-16314
Opinion
Date: June 27, 2018
Judges:
TJOFLAT and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and ROBRENO
Areas
of Law: Consumer law, Fair Credit Reporting Act
Mortgagor
brought action against mortgage servicer, as furnisher of information to credit
reporting agencies regarding her compliance with her payment obligations under
her mortgage loan, claiming that furnisher failed to conduct a reasonable
investigation into the accuracy of its credit reporting of her mortgage loan in
violation of FCRA -- District court did not err in finding that mortgagor's
FCRA claim failed as matter of law because the undisputed material facts
demonstrated that furnisher's reporting of mortgage account as past due and
delinquent during a forbearance plan was neither inaccurate nor materially
misleading, and thus mortgagor failed to make the threshold showing that a
reasonable investigation could have uncovered an inaccuracy -- Information
reported regarding mortgagor's compliance with the terms of Note was not
inaccurate where furnisher reported that scheduled monthly payment amount was
full amount due under the Note and that mortgagor's payments were “past due”
and “delinquent” for months that she did not make full payments required under
the Note -- Apparent compliance with terms of forbearance plan mortgagor
entered into with furnisher has no bearing on accuracy of information reported
to CRAs regarding compliance with terms of original Note, unless plan legally
modified terms of Note, and mortgagor has not identified any facts in record establishing
that the forbearance plan legally modified the Note -- Consumer Data Industry
Association's guidelines regarding credit reporting do not demonstrate that
information reported was inaccurate -- Where mortgagor owed payments under
Note, it was not misleading for furnisher to report that payments were not
being made under Note as agreed, particularly in light of furnisher's
additional statement that she was paying under a partial payment agreement --
Omission of lower payment amount mortgagor agreed to pay under forbearance plan
did not render credit reporting misleading.
Autauga
Quality Cotton Ass’n v. Crosby
Docket:
17-12092
Opinion
Date: June 25, 2018
Judges:
NEWSOM, BRANCH, and ANDERSON
Areas
of Law: Contracts, Cotton marketing agreement, Breach by grower, Damages
Liquidated
damages clause in agreement between grower and cooperative that pooled and
marketed grower's cotton amounted to an impermissible penalty under Alabama law
and is unenforceable -- Provision did not satisfy second or third prong of
three-part test set forth by Alabama court in Camelot Music, Inc. v. Marx
Realty & Imp. Co. where evidence indicated that intent was to provide for
penalty, not damages, and the agreement's liquidated-damages formula did not
remotely prescribe a “reasonable pre-breach [estimate] of the probable loss” --
Cooperative organized under article 4 of Alabama's Agricultural Code not
entitled to avail itself of Article 3 liquidated-damages authorization.
Everglades
College, Inc. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Board
Docket:
16-10341
Opinion
Date: June 26, 2018
Judges:
MARTIN and HULL, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI
Areas
of Law: Labor relations, Unfair labor practices
Employer
did not violate National Labor Relations Act by maintaining and enforcing
employment agreement that required employees to individually arbitrate
employment-related claims and that waived employees' rights to file class or
collective action lawsuits against employer -- Whether employer violated NLRA
by maintaining and enforcing employment agreement that caused employees to
reasonably believe that they were prohibited from filing unfair labor charges
with National Labor Relations Board must be re-evaluated in light of NLRB's
recent refashioning of its test for determining whether an employer's allegedly
facially neutral policy would reasonably lead an employee to believe that she
could not file an unfair labor charge with NLRB -- Unlawful discharge --
Whether employer unlawfully discharged employee for refusing to sign an
unlawful employment agreement which could reasonably be construed as
prohibiting the filing of unfair labor charges with NLRB must also be
reconsidered in light of NLRB's new standard, which applies retroactively.
Llorca
v. Sheriff, Collier county, Florida
Docket:
17-10616; 17-11377
Opinion
Date: June 27, 2018
Judges:
JILL PRYOR, ANDERSON, and HULL
Areas
of Law: Labor relations, Fair Labor Standards Act, Overtime
Sheriff
deputies are not entitled to compensation under FLSA or Florida Minimum Wage
Act for time spent donning and doffing police gear at home or time spent
driving to and from work in marked patrol vehicles -- Even though donning and
doffing protective gear arguably may be “indispensable,” it is not “integral”
to deputies' principal activities of law enforcement duties and therefore such
time is not compensable -- Donning and doffing is an entirely separate activity
from deputies' principal law enforcement duties, and therefore donning and
doffing is a preliminary and postliminary activity as contemplated by
Portal-to-Portal Act -- Time deputies spent commuting in marked patrol vehicle
is excluded from compensable work time by plain language of Portal-to-Portal
Act -- Monitoring roads for traffic violations and other incidents during the
deputies' commutes are incidental to use of marked patrol vehicle and not part
of employee's principal activities -- Performance of general traffic law
enforcement during deputies' commutes is not integral and indispensable to
deputies' performance of their principal activities
Rodriguez
Asalde v. First Class Parking Systems LLC
Docket:
16-16814
Opinion
Date: June 29, 2018
Judge:
Jordan
Areas
of Law: Labor & Employment Law
Plaintiffs,
who are valets, filed a putative class action against FCPS, alleging claims
under the minimum-wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). The Eleventh Circuit held that, although the district court correctly
ruled that the vehicles parked by plaintiffs were "goods" subject to
the ultimate consumer exception, and not "materials" under the FLSA,
FCPS was not entitled to summary judgment on the FLSA claims. Viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, a jury could reasonably
find that the uniforms they had to wear as valets for FCPS constituted
"materials" under 29 U.S.C. 203(s)(1)(A). Furthermore, the labels on
the uniforms, which reflect foreign manufacture, similarly created a jury issue
as to whether the uniforms moved in international or interstate commerce under
section 203(s)(1)(A)(ii). Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in
part, and remanded.
The Law Lady. For more info about us, click here. To be added to our email circulation with MUCH, MUCH more law, click here and specify whether you wish to be added to our CRIMINAL, CIVIL, or FEDERAL Recent Decisions of Interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)