Mealey Publications™
TOP STORIES
RICHMOND, Va. — Concluding in an unpublished opinion that the trial court properly applied the governing principles of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, “credited evidence where warranted, and rejected claims where the proof fell short,” the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 3 affirmed two denials of class certification and two other rulings in a long-running case over termination of a retiree welfare benefits plan that was the subject of consolidated appeals.
LAS VEGAS — A Nevada federal magistrate judge ordered the parties to appear for a settlement conference after a federal judge granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment in insureds’ suit seeking coverage for expenses in defending another suit regarding fraud-based claims.
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge partially granted a coalition of states’ motion to enforce or expand a previously issued preliminary injunction in their challenge to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s demand for the personal data of their residents who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, ruling that although the agency’s renewed data request was not covered by the earlier order, the states are likely to succeed on their claim that the request violates disclosure safeguards and preliminarily barring the agency from withholding funding based on noncompliance.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on March 2 rejected an artist’s petition for a writ of certiorari, declining to hear the artist’s argument that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals wrongly held that copyrightability is a pure question of law when it upheld a California federal judge’s dismissal of infringement claims brought against singer and rapper Lil Nas X.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court will review a Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel decision striking down a COVID-era Mississippi state law providing that mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day may be received by the registrar within five days of Election Day and still be valid, the court on March 2 granted the U.S. solicitor general’s motion to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument, while denying two separate motions by other respondents for divided argument.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. — The owners of a North Carolina Superfund site contaminated with hazardous substances following decades of weapons and chemical manufacturing operations struck an agreement with the United States in a federal court to drop their claims seeking reimbursement for cleanup costs pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 in exchange for a $3.9 million payment.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An artist’s attempt to copyright an artificial intelligence-generated piece of art appears doomed after the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2 denied his petition for a writ of certiorari in which he argued that the Copyright Act does not impose a human authorship requirement.
CINCINNATI — The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss an insured’s amended complaint seeking coverage for underlying asbestos liabilities, determining that the insured adequately states a claim for breach of contract.
WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware judge granted primary insurers’ motion for partial summary judgment in their declaratory judgment lawsuit brought against Instagram LLC and Meta Platforms Inc. (collectively, Meta), ruling that the insurers have no duty to defend against several thousand lawsuits alleging that Meta’s platforms caused harm to children because none of the underlying allegations “whether express, inferable, or extrinsic—support a conclusion that Meta’s conduct was accidental.”
NEW ORLEANS — Distinguishing a sister circuit’s ruling that upheld an award of benefits under the same Employee Retirement Income Security Act severance plan following de novo review, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion agreed with the lower court that the abuse-of-discretion standard applies and substantial evidence supported denial of benefits under the plan’s “good reason” clause.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on March 2 denied review of a petition filed by a group of individuals who objected to the $600 million class action settlement in the Ohio train derailment lawsuit and appealed a lower court’s requirements pertaining to an appeal bond in that litigation. The petitioners had argued that “the notion an appeal bond must be separately appealed, and cannot be challenged by motion within the appeal to which it relates, represents a split of authority among circuits.”