Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of drug conspiracy charges and imprisoned for almost four years. The charges also led to Appellant’s forfeiture of two trucks and a boat. A previous panel of the First Circuit reversed the conviction, concluding that the charges were not supported by the evidence. Thereafter, Appellant filed a civil suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging, among other claims, malicious prosecution, false arrest and imprisonment, and the unlawful deprivation of his property. The district court denied relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellant’s challenges to the district court’s rejection of his claims failed. View "Paret-Ruiz v. United States" on Justia Law

Shelly Rando, a pharmacy technician at a CVS Pharmacy in Massachusetts, was suspected of stealing more than 100 bottles of a pain medication. Michelle Leonard, a loss prevention manager at CVS, interviewed Rando. Durimg the interview, Rando confessed to stealing all of the missing bottles. Rando was subsequently terminated. Rando sued Leonard for intentional interference with contractual relations, alleging that Leonard forced her to confess. The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of Leonard. The First Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the evidence did not support a claim for intentional interference with contactual relations. View "Rando v. Leonard" on Justia Law

Fabry Disease, a rare genetic disorder, leaves afflicted persons unable to synthesize a key enzyme that helps the body break down fats. Untreated, Fabry patients suffer progressively more severe symptoms, including pain in their extremities, gastrointestinal issues, vision and hearing losses, stroke, and heart and kidney failure, eventually leading to premature death. Researchers at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine developed a method for producing a replacement enzyme, which effectively treats (but does not cure) Fabry. After patenting this method, Mt. Sinai granted an exclusive license to Genzyme, which became the sole producer of the replacement enzyme, "Fabrazyme," the only FDA-approved enzyme replacement therapy for the treatment of Fabry. Genzyme provided the drug to Fabry patients until 2009. After a virus was discovered in improperly cleaned equipment at the company's manufacturing facility, Genzyme reduced production, leading to a Fabrazyme shortage. The company began rationing. Despite setbacks in reestablishing production levels, in 2011 Genzyme diverted some Fabrazyme to the European market, allegedly because of competition Genzyme faced from an alternative enzyme replacement therapy approved only in Europe. Two class action complaints were consolidated and dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed in part, for lack of standing, noting “the utter failure of any plaintiff (other than Mooney) to plausibly allege that he or she suffered an injury in fact as a result of accelerated disease progression or receipt of a contaminated drug.” View "Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corp." on Justia Law

Two brothers were awarded a $2.79 billion judgment against the Republic of Cuba and other Cuban parties. The brothers subsequently sought to satisfy the federal judgment. The district court concluded that certain assets the brothers sought to attach to satisfy the judgment were not the property of the Cuban government and thus were not subject to attachment in satisfaction of their judgment. The brothers appealed. The trustee who controlled the assets at issue cross-appealed, arguing that the district court erred by denying its motion for attorneys’ fees incurred in proceedings addressing whether it had to turn over the assets to the brothers. The First Circuit affirmed in all respects, holding that the district court (1) did not err in dismissing the case, as the assets at issue were not the property of the Cuban government; and (2) did not err in denying the trustee’s motion for attorneys’ fees as untimely. View "Villoldo v. Castro Ruz" on Justia Law

Maribel Quilez-Bonelli died from injuries she received in an automobile accident with a truck used by employees of the Municipality of San Juan. The truck had fitted onto its trash body an underride guard designed by Ox Bodies, Inc. Maribel’s family members (collectively, Quilez) brought suit in federal district court against Ox Bodies, seeking damages for negligence and defective design of the under ride guard. A jury found Ox Bodies strictly liable for defective design and awarded Plaintiffs $6 million in damages. The jury assigned twenty percent of responsibility for the damages to Ox Bodies and eighty percent to the Municipality of San Juan, which was not a party in the suit. The magistrate judge ruled that Ox Bodies should be held responsible for only twenty percent of the damages award. Both parties appealed. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the magistrate judge’s decision to admit the testimony of Quilez’s expert regarding an alternative underride guard design; and (2) as to Quilez’s appeal, certified to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico the question of the extent of Ox Bodies’ liability for the damages award. View "Quilez-Velar v. Ox Bodies, Inc." on Justia Law

TelTech Systems, Inc.’s SpoofCard service, a prepaid minutes-based calling service, enables customers to disguise the phone number from which they place calls. In 2009, a customer placed several phone calls to Appellant using SpoofCard and, posing as someone else, made a series of sexually harassing comments to Appellant. Appellant sued TelTech under Massachusetts’s consumer protection statute. The district court granted summary judgment for TelTech, concluding that no reasonable jury could find that TelTech’s actions caused Appellant’s injuries. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in ruling that, on this record, TelTech was entitled to summary judgment on Appellant’s state law claim. View "Walsh v. Teltech Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. is an international media company that produces news and entertainment programming through a proprietary mobile software application (the “App”). Plaintiff downloaded and installed the App on his Android mobile device. Every time Plaintiff watched a video clip on the App, Gannett shared information about Plaintiff with Adobe Systems Incorporated. Plaintiff brought this putative class-action lawsuit against Gannett for allegedly disclosing information about him to a third party in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The district court dismissed the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), concluding that that information disclosed by Gannett was “personally identifiable information” (PII) under the VPPA but that Plaintiff was not a “consumer” protected by the VPPA. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the complaint adequately alleged that Plaintiff was a “consumer” under the VPPA. Remanded. View "Yershov v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc." on Justia Law

Brian Milward and his wife sued, among other defendants, Rust-Oleum Corporation alleging that Defendants’ negligence caused Milward’s Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia. To succeed against Rust-Oleum, the Milwards had the burden of establishing general and specific causation through expert testimony. The district court excluded the Milwards’ general causation expert and entered judgment in favor of Defendants. The First Circuit reversed and remanded for the trial court to consider the issue of specific causation. The district court ultimately excluded the testimony of Plaintiffs’ specific causation expert. Because the Milwards could not establish specific causation without this testimony, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Rust-Oleum. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in excluding the specific causation expert's testimony because the analysis was unreliable; and (2) once the district court excluded the expert testimony, it correctly granted Rust-Oleum’s motion for summary judgment. View "Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was shot and wounded in the vicinity of San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico, after one of several police vehicles closely approached him. Plaintiff plausibly alleged that he had been shot by a police officer. Plaintiff filed suit seeking damages against named and unnamed members of the Puerto Rico Police Department (PRPD), the San Lorenzo municipal police, and the Puerto Rico Department of Justice. While Defendants’ motions to dismiss were pending, the PRPD produced documents indicating, for the first time, the identity of the shooter. The district court subsequently denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiff’s supervisory liability and conspiracy claims failed to satisfy the minimum requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The First Circuit reversed the judgment of dismissal as to the superintendent of the PRPD at the time of the shooting and affirmed the judgment in all other respects, holding (1) Plaintiff’s supervisory liability claim against the supervisor crossed the plausibility threshold; (2) the district court did not err in dismissing the supervisory claims against the other supervisory defendants; and (3) Defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal were waived. View "Guadalupe-Baez v. Police Officers A-Z" on Justia Law

Flovac, Inc. and Airvac, Inc. both fabricate vacuum sewer systems. Flovac filed suit against Airvac seeking relief under both federal and Puerto Rico antitrust laws and alleging that Airvac’s conduct in marketing its vacuum sewer systems was anticompetitive. Flovac also brought claims of tortious interference with advantageous economic relations under Puerto Rico’s general tort statute. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Airvac on all claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) because the summary judgment record disclosed a relevant market much broader than Flovac claimed and a market where Defendant lacked market dominance, summary judgment was properly granted on Flovac’s antitrust claims; and (2) Flovac’s claim of tortious interference with advantageous economic relations was time-barred. View "Flovac, Inc. v. Airvac, Inc." on Justia Law