Legal News

Case Summaries

Asset Forfeiture

[12/22] US v. Twenty Miljam-350 IED Jammers
In a case seeking civil in rem forfeiture, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. Section 401(a), of certain communication-jamming devices that the owner was charged with illegally attempting to export, the district court's judgment ordering forfeiture is affirmed where: 1) the claimant's stipulation not to contest forfeiture in exchange for dismissal of a criminal complaint was enforceable; and 2) the claimant lacked Article III standing to oppose the forfeiture because it could not cause him injury.

[11/30] US v. Martin
In an appeal from an order of the district court directing a criminal forfeiture, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2 and after the appellants were convicted on drug-related offenses, order is affirmed where the Rule 32.2 deadline, as it then existed, is most persuasively understood as a time-related directive rather than a jurisdictional condition, and because appellants were on notice at the time of sentencing that the district court would enter forfeiture orders.

[11/22] US v. Zorrilla-Echevarria
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing petitioners' application for ancillary hearings to a criminal forfeiture proceedings under 31 U.S.C. sections 5317(c)(1) and 5332(b)(2), judgment is: 1) affirmed in part as to the entry of the money judgment order of forfeiture with respect to defendant; and 2) vacated in part as to the portion of the final order of forfeiture ordering that the attached $543,731 in cash shall be used to satisfy the money judgment.

[11/14] LA County Metro. Trans. Authority v. Alameda Produce Market, LLC
In an appeal from a judgment of the court of appeals concerning the scope of the waiver provisions of California's "quick-take" eminent domain procedure, Code Civ. Proc. sections 1255.010, 1255.410, judgment is reversed because if a lender holding a lien on condemned property applies to withdraw a portion of a Section 1255.210 deposit, and the property owner does not object to the application, the lender's withdrawal does not constitute a waiver of the property owner's claims and defenses under Section 1255.260.

Read More

Aerospace & Defense

[06/23] Rectrix Aerodrome Ctrs., Inc. v. Barnstable Mun. Airport Comm'n
In plaintiff's suit against an airport commission and individual defendants, claiming that it was prevented from competing with defendant in the sale of jet fuel, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's fraud claim fails as plaintiff was a commercial tenant of the airport and, given the self-service standards and lease terms, had no right and no reasonable expectation of being able to sell jet fuel at the airport; 2) the antitrust claim is barred by the state action doctrine given the Massachusetts statute; and 3) plaintiff's equal protection claim under section 1983 fails as no private entity at the airport has the privilege sought by plaintiff.

[06/23] Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. US Airways Group
In an airline pilots union's suit to establish and arbitrate before a multi-employer, multi-union board of adjustment, district court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed as plaintiff's claim is foreclosed by the plain language of section 204 of the Railway Labor Act, which permits but does not require such a board adjustment, and plaintiff's alternative state law claim is meritless.

[06/08] Turner v. NTSB
In pilots' petition for review of the National Transportation Safety Board's order reversing an attorney's fee award to petitioners against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in a pilot's license revocation proceeding, the petition is denied where: 1) because the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the cases without prejudice, there was nothing in this case analogous to judicial relief; 2) the pilots are not prevailing parties for purposes of 5 U.S.C. section 504(a)(1), and thus, they are not entitled to recover their attorneys fees and expenses under that section; and 3) petitioners could not recover under section 504(a)(4) because the FAA did not prevail.

Read More