Case Summaries

Class Actions

[05/13] Bufil v. Dollar Fin. Group, Inc.
In a purported class action against an employer alleging violation of meal and rest break labor laws, a judgment entered in favor of employer along with a denial of plaintiff's motion for class certification are reversed where the trial court erred in: 1) concluding that issue preclusion principles should bar plaintiff's request for class certification under applicable precedents; and 2) finding that individual issues predominated over common issues, class members were unascertainable, and a class action was not the superior method for resolving the litigation.

More...

Consumer Products

[04/25] Parish Oil Co., Inc. v. Dillon Cos., Inc.
Under a now-amended Colorado unfair competition statute, a grocery store may sell gasoline below cost if such sales are conditioned on the purchase of enough groceries above cost that the entire series of transactions comes in at a profit. Consequently, a judgment in favor of competitors challenging such a practice is reversed.

More...

Consumer Protection

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[05/14] Lockett v. Suardini
In a prisoner's action claiming a violation of his free speech rights when he was forcibly removed from a parole hearing after insulting the hearing officer, as well as cruel and unusual punishment based on guards' use of excessive force and nursing staff's refusal to treat his injuries, summary judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a prisoner is not engaged in protected conduct when he violates a legitimate prison regulation; 2) the prison guards used minimal force and plaintiff suffered minimal injuries when he was removed from the hearing room; and 3) plaintiff did not have an objectively serious medical need due to his minor injuries, and there was no deliberate indifference from the nursing staff since they checked up on the plaintiff twice after the incident.

More...