Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
FTC v. Network Servs. Depot, Inc., No. 09-15684, concerned an action by the FTC against defendants for making material misrepresentations and engaging in deceptive business practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The court affirmed judgment for plaintiffs on the grounds that 1) the facts led only to the conclusion that defendants had actual knowledge that at least some of their company's representations were false and potentially misleading; and 2) the district court did not commit reversible error by imposing a constructive trust upon $238,300 in fees that defendant paid to defense counsel.
Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., No. 08-15903, involved an action by flight attendants who were dismissed for sexual harassment, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex and national origin in violation of Title VII. The court affirmed summary judgment for defendant on the grounds that 1) the district court did not err by focusing on the inference of discrimination that was central to plaintiffs' case; and 2) even assuming the female flight attendants reported to the same supervisor as plaintiffs, the two groups were not similarly situated because the female employees' alleged conduct was not unwelcome and never resulted in a complaint.
Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., No. 08-55075, involved an action by an adult video actor claiming that defendants copied and sold thirteen copyrighted adult DVDs featuring plaintiff's performances. The court affirmed partial judgment as a matter of law for defendants on the grounds that 1) plaintiff's right of publicity claim was preempted by the Copyright Act; but 2) plaintiffs had standing to assert the copyright claims in question.
Lockwood v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 09-35546, concerned a petition for review of the denial of social security benefits to petitioner, claiming that the ALJ erred when she failed to explain in her written decision why she treated a social security claimant as being a person closely approaching advanced age instead of treating the claimant as being a person of advanced age. The court denied the petition on the ground that the ALJ did not err because she was required by regulation only to consider whether to use the older age category.
US v. Hall, No. 08-17267, involved debtors' appeal from the district court's reversal of the bankruptcy court's order sustaining the IRS's objection to debtors' proposed reorganization plan. The court reversed where, since the chapter 12 estate is not a taxable entity, the chapter 12 estate cannot "incur" a tax.