A U.S. Postal Service (USPS) vehicle allegedly ran over A.M.L.’s foot on July 18, 2018. A.M.L.’s mother sent a Claim for Damage, Injury or Death (Standard Form 95) to USPS in August 2018. A year later, A.M.L.’s attorney sent a demand letter that set forth A.M.L.’s medical expenses. After USPS denied liability, A.M.L. (by and through her parent) filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The government moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that A.M.L. had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before bringing suit. The district court dismissed the suit, and A.M.L. appealed, arguing that her claims satisfied the FTCA’s presentment requirement.   The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded. The court held that Sections 2672 and 2675(b) do not require that a claim set forth a single-dollar amount, but that it must express the maximum value of the asserted claim. Accordingly, the expression of a range complies with the statute’s requirements because it presents the maximum value of the claim. A.M.L.’s claim of “$250,000 to $275,000” thus presented a sum certain in compliance with the FTCA’s presentment requirement. View "A.M.L. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the circuit court reversing the judgment of the tax appeals commission concluding that the sales tax exemption in Wisconsin Act 185, which expanded an existing sales tax exemption to include the sale of aircraft parts or maintenance, did not apply to Lessees' payments for aircraft repairs and engine maintenance, holding that the court of appeals did not err.Citation Partners, LLC owned an aircraft that it leased to Lessees. Citation Partners charged per-flight-hour rates for aircraft repairs and maintenance as part of the total amount Lessees paid to lease the aircraft, which rates corresponded to the amount Citation Partners spent on repairs and maintenance. Citation Partners argued that this portion of the lease payment was tax exempt because it was a sale of aircraft parts or maintenance. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the court of appeals correctly found that the payments were not exempt from sales tax under the plain language of the statutes. View "Citation Partners, LLC v. Wis. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petition's petition for review of the decision of the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (Board) to deny Petitioner a disabled child's annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act (Act), 45 U.S.C. 231a(d)(1)(iii), holding that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence.Petitioner, who was born in 1954, applied in 2015 for a disabled child's annuity under a provision of the Act that entitles unmarried children of certain deceased railroad employees to an annuity if they have developed a disability before the age of twenty-two. The Board found, among other things, that there was inadequate evidence to support a finding that Petitioner suffered a physical or mental impairment prior to age twenty-two. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that Petitioner did not have any physical or mental impairment prior to age twenty-two. View "Crockett v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd." on Justia Law

Olga Marcela Escobar-Eck was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Atlantis, a land use and strategic planning firm in San Diego. Atlantis helped submit an application, on behalf of All People’s Church (Church) to the City of San Diego (City) for the development of a church campus. The Church hired Atlantis around 2019 to guide it through the City's review and approval process. To this end, Escobar-Eck attended public meetings concerning the Church project and identified herself as a representative of the Church. Plaintiff Joshua Billauer lived in San Diego and worked for Wells Fargo. He was a neighborhood activist, and owned property in the Del Cerro area where the Church project was proposed. Billauer did not favor the Church project, emphasizing the project’s lack of housing despite the “ ‘major housing crisis’ ” in San Diego and speaking against it at community meetings. In 2020, Escobar-Eck was making a presentation on Zoom to a community planning group on behalf of the Church. During the a person who only was identifiable by the name "JJ" sent private messages to her through Zoom’s chat function, accusing Escobar-Eck of being dishonest about a house purchase that occurred near the Church. At the time of the message, Escobar-Eck did not know JJ’s true identity. Later, she learned JJ was Billauer. On December 10, 2020, Escobar-Eck posted a tweet on Twitter that was directed at Billauer’s employer, Wells Fargo, asserting Billauer was “[a] racist person who is engaging in cyberbullying.” On February 16, 2021, Billauer sued Escobar-Eck. The operative complaint includes a single cause of action entitled “Recovery of Damages.” Billauer claims that Escobar-Eck’s December 10 tweet constituted libel per se and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Billauer appealed an order denying his special motion to strike a cross-complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. In denying the motion, the court found that Billauer’s alleged posts were protected speech under the anti-SLAPP statute, but Escobar-Eck had shown a probability of success on the merits for her libel per se claim. The Court of Appeal concluded Escobar-Eck has satisfied her burden to establish a probability of success on the merits, and Billauer has not provided evidence to defeat her claims as a matter of law. View "Billauer v. Escobar-Eck" on Justia Law

The Bank Secrecy Act requires U.S. persons with financial interests in foreign accounts to file an “FBAR” annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts; 31 U.S.C. 5314 delineates legal duties while section 5321 outlines the penalties, with a maximum $10,000 penalty for non-willful violations. Bittner—a dual citizen of Romania and the U.S.—learned of his reporting obligations in 2011 and subsequently submitted reports covering 2007-2011. The government deemed Bittner’s late reports deficient because they did not address all accounts as to which Bittner had either signatory authority or a qualifying interest. Bittner filed corrected FBARs providing information for 61 accounts in 2007, 51 in 2008, 53 in 2009 and 2010, and 54 in 2011. The government asserted that non-willful penalties apply to each account not accurately or timely reported. Bittner’s reports collectively involved 272 accounts; the government calculated a $2.72 million penalty. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.The Supreme Court reversed. The $10,000 maximum penalty for non-willful failure to file a compliant report accrues on a per-report, not a per-account, basis. Section 5314 does not address accounts or their number. An individual files a compliant report or does not. For cases involving willful violations, the statute tailors penalties to accounts. When one section of a statute includes language omitted from a neighboring section, the difference normally conveys a different meaning. The Act's implementing regulations require individuals with fewer than 25 accounts to provide details about each account while individuals with 25 or more accounts do not need to list each account or provide account-specific details unless requested by the Secretary. View "Bittner v. United States" on Justia Law

The States of Illinois and Nevada (collectively referred to as “the States” or “Plaintiffs”) filed a mandamus action in the district court, seeking to compel the Archivist of the United States to certify and publish the Equal Rights Amendment (“ERA”) as part of the Constitution of the United States. The States argued that the Archivist had a duty to certify and publish the ERA because it was ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the States of the Union as required by Article V of the Constitution. The district court agreed, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.   The DC Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the States have not clearly and indisputably shown that the Archivist had a duty to certify and publish the ERA or that Congress lacked the authority to place a time limit in the proposing clause of the ERA. Under the rigid standard required for mandamus actions, the court wrote it must affirm the district court’s dismissal of the States’ complaint on the ground that the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. View "State of Illinois v. David Ferriero" on Justia Law

Respondent-Mother appealed a circuit court order finding that her children were abused and neglected. Petitioner New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) filed six abuse and neglect petitions alleging Mother's biological children, J.S. and J.P.S. were born prematurely due to exposure to drugs taken during Mother's pregnancy. J.P.S. was born on October 7, 2021, at Mother and Father’s home. Approximately three days after his birth, J.P.S. began showing signs of distress. Father brought J.P.S. to Catholic Medical Center (CMC) under the so-called “safe haven law,” and stated that the child’s mother was, or was believed to be, an intravenous drug user. Because J.P.S’s needs were so extensive, he was transported to Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH). After three days at BCH, J.P.S. returned to CMC, where he was still being treated at the time of the adjudicatory hearing. He was diagnosed with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). The circuit court entered findings of “true” with respect to four petitions alleging neglect of J.S. and J.P.S. by Mother and Father. The two remaining petitions alleged abuse of J.P.S. by Father and Mother, respectively, through injuries sustained by J.P.S. after birth, caused by Mother’s prenatal narcotics use. The court entered findings of “not true” with respect to Father and “true” with respect to Mother. Mother appealed, challenging the finding of abuse of J.P.S. and the findings of neglect of both J.P.S. and J.S., and raising other alleged errors. The only question briefed by Mother, however, relates to the finding of abuse of J.P.S. Accordingly, we deem all other issues raised in Mother’s notice of appeal waived. The New Hampshire Supreme Court found no reversible error in the circuit court's judgment and affirmed. View "In re J.P.S.; In re J.S." on Justia Law

The Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Regional Board) renewed permits allowing four publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) to discharge millions of gallons of treated wastewater daily into the Los Angeles River and Pacific Ocean. The Regional Board issued the permits over the objections of Los Angeles Waterkeeper (Waterkeeper), an environmental advocacy organization. Waterkeeper sought a review of the permits before the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), and the State Board declined to review. Waterkeeper then filed petitions for writs of mandate against the State and Regional Boards (collectively, the Boards), naming the cities that owned the four POTWs as real parties in interest.   The Second Appellate District affirmed judgments of dismissal in favor of the Regional Board. The court dismissed the judgments and writs of mandate. Finally, the court reversed the order granting Los Angeles Waterkeeper attorney fees. The court wrote that Waterkeeper has failed adequately to plead causes of action under Article C, section 2 and Water Code Sections 100 and 275. Further, the court explained that the Regional Board does not have a duty to evaluate whether discharges of treated wastewater are an unreasonable use of water. Moreover, Waterkeeper has not adequately pleaded a cause of action against the State Board. Additionally, the court found that Public Resources Code Section 21002 does not apply to wastewater discharge permits. View "L.A. Waterkeeper v. State Wat. Resources Control Bd." on Justia Law

The Lunada Bay Boys (Bay Boys) are a group of young and middle-aged men local to the City of Palos Verdes (the “City”), who consider themselves to be the self-appointed guardians of Lunada Bay. One of their tenets is to keep outsiders away from the surf location. They accomplish this through threats and violence. Plaintiffs are (1) two non-locals who encountered harassment by the Bay Boys when they tried to surf Lunada Bay and (2) a non-profit dedicated to preserving coastal access. They brought suit against the Bay Boys, some of its individual members, and the City itself for conspiracy to deny access under the California Coastal Act. Plaintiffs alleged that the City conspired with the Bay Boys essentially to privatize Lunada Bay, depriving nonlocals of access. The trial court granted the City judgment on the pleadings.   The Second Appellate District reversed. The court held that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged an unpermitted “development” in the Bay Boys’ denial of access to the beach. Further, the court explained that parties can, in fact, be liable for Coastal Act violations under the doctrine of conspiracy. Conspiracy liability is not limited to tort; defendants may be liable if they agree to engage in conduct that violates a duty imposed by statute. The court wrote, at this point, Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged an actionable conspiracy in which the City has participated. View "Spencer v. City of Palos Verdes Estates" on Justia Law

Securus Technologies, LLC (Securus), is one of six telecommunications companies providing incarcerated persons calling services (IPCS) in California. In this original proceeding, Securus challenges the decision of the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) adopting interim rate relief for IPCS in the first phase of a two-phase rulemaking proceeding. Among other things, the PUC’s decision: (1) found IPCS providers operate as locational monopolies within the incarceration facilities they serve and exercise market power; (2) adopted an interim cap on intrastate IPCS rates of $0.07 per minute for all debit, prepaid, and collect calls; and (3) prohibited providers from charging various ancillary fees associated with intrastate and jurisdictionally mixed IPCS.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the PUC’s decision. The court concluded Securus has not shown the PUC erred by finding providers operate locational monopolies and exercise market power. The court held that facts do not—as Securus contends—demonstrate Securus “cannot recover its costs (including a reasonable rate of return)” under the interim rate cap and do not amount to a “clear showing” that a rate of $0.07 per minute “is so unreasonably low” that “it will threaten Securus’s financial integrity.” Thus, Securus has failed to satisfy its “burden of proving . . . prejudicial error” on constitutional grounds. View "Securus Technologies v. Public Utilities Com." on Justia Law