Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s summary judgment of his claims against Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana (“Safeco”) for violating Section 541 and Section 542 of the Texas Insurance Code.   The Fifth Circuit explained that in 2017, the Texas legislature amended Section 542, raising an important issue of Texas insurance law as to which there is no controlling Texas Supreme Court authority, and the authority from the intermediate state appellate courts provides insufficient guidance. Thus, the court certified the following question of state law to the Supreme Court of Texas: In an action under Chapter 542A of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act, does an insurer’s payment of the full appraisal award plus any possible statutory interest preclude recovery of attorney’s fees? View "Rodriguez v. Safeco" on Justia Law

Thai was an IBM employee. To accomplish his duties, he required, among other things, internet access, telephone service, a telephone headset, and a computer and accessories. On March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom signed the COVID-19 “stay home” order. IBM directed Thai and thousands of his coworkers to continue performing their regular job duties from home. Thai and his coworkers personally paid for the services and equipment necessary to do their jobs while working from home. IBM never reimbursed its employees for these expenses.The court of appeal reversed the dismissal of a complaint under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA; Labor Code 2699). Section 2802(a)) requires an employer to reimburse an employee “for all necessary expenditures . . . incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.” The trial court’s conclusion that the Governor’s order was an intervening cause of the work-from-home expenses that absolved IBM of liability under section 2802 is inconsistent with the statutory language. The work-from-home expenses were inherent to IBM’s business and the work performed was for the benefit of IBM. View "Thai v. International Business Machines Corp." on Justia Law

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System brought an enforcement action against Petitioners Frank Smith and Mark Kiolbasa, who were employees at Farmers State Bank at the time, after finding they committed misconduct at Central Bank & Trust where they had previously worked. This resulted in their removal as officers and directors of Farmers Bank and the imposition of restrictions on their abilities to serve as officers, directors, or employees of other banks in the future. Petitioners sought review from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the Board did not have authority to bring this enforcement action against them because the Board was not the “appropriate Federal banking agency,” as defined by 12 U.S.C. § 1813(q)(3), with authority over the bank where the misconduct took place. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that, because the Board had authority over Petitioners at the time the action commenced, the Board was an appropriate federal banking agency and had authority to initiate the proceeding. The appellate court also declined to review Petitioners’ Appointments Clause challenge because they did not raise it at trial. View "Smith, et al. v. FRS" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the court of appeals determining that the Mill Creek Metropolitan Park District Board of Commissioners failed to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 1545.11 when it initiated appropriation proceedings to take private property owed by Landowner, holding that the trial court's orders denying Landowner's motions for summary judgment were not final, appealable orders.The Park District initiated appropriation proceedings against Landowner. Landowner answered by denying the necessity of the appropriation and the Park District's authority to appropriate the property. The trial court denied Landowner's motions for summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for Landowner. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' judgment, holding that the court erred in determining that the trial court's orders denying Landowner's motions for summary judgment were final, appealable orders. View "Mill Creek Metropolitan Park District Bd. of Commissioners v. Less" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a claim for reimbursement of emergency medical services may be maintained against a health care service plan when the plan is operated by a public entity and that the Government Claims Act, Cal. Gov. Code 810 et seq., did not immunize the County of Santa Clara from such a claim in this case.Two hospitals submitted reimbursement claims for the emergency medical services they provided to three individuals enrolled in a County-operated health care service plan. The hospitals sued for the remaining amounts based on the reimbursement provision of the Knox-Keene Act, and the trial court concluded that the hospitals could state a quantum merit claim against the County. The court of appeal reversed, determining that the County was immune from suit under the Government Claims Act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the County was not immune from suit under the circumstances of this case and that the hospitals' claims may proceed. View "County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

This case arose from the Bureau of Reclamation’s ("Reclamation") Environmental Analysis of a proposed water contract between it and Utah involving water in the Green River Basin. The Green River Block Exchange contract allowed Utah to draw water from releases from Flaming Gorge Reservoir instead of depleting water from the Green River and its tributary flows to which Utah was entitled under Article XV(b) of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948. Conservation groups sued Reclamation and the U.S. Department of the Interior alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court found that Reclamation’s NEPA analysis was not arbitrary and capricious, that the agency took a “hard look” at cumulative impacts, and that it properly determined that an Environmental Impact Statement was not required. The Tenth Circuit affirmed: the record adequately demonstrated that Reclamation took a hard look at the proposed action and provided a reasoned explanation of its decision. View "Center for Biological, et al. v. US Department of the Interior, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant John Bradbury was resident of the City of Lewiston, Idaho and was an elected member of its city council. While serving in that capacity, he filed a petition alleging nine causes of action concerning various City funds and services, including those related to water, sanitation, wastewater, city streets, the library, and the municipally-owned Bryden Canyon Golf Course. Bradbury contended the City had been collecting excessive utility fees and improperly spending municipal funds. Bradbury sought declaratory and equitable relief. He appealed when the district court dismissed most of his claims at summary judgment, and raised additional errors for appellate review. The Idaho Supreme Court determined only that the district court erred in determining that the Idaho Tort Claims Act (“ITCA”) precluded recovery on a constitutional claim seeking equitable relief. The Court determined a remand was unnecessary where Bradbury conceded he was seeking no such remedy for himself. The Court affirmed the district court in all other respects. View "Bradbury v. City of Lewiston" on Justia Law

In September 2018, the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (“the Bureau”) decided to move forward with a water project in North Dakota. The State of Missouri challenged the decision under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. Sections 701–706, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. Sections 4321–4347, and the Water Supply Act of 1958 (“Water Supply Act”). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the Water Supply Act itself. Simply put, Congressional approval is Congressional approval. If the Bureau and the other defendants had sufficient project-specific authorization, they need not seek additional approval again under the Water Supply Act. The court further concluded that Missouri has not met its burden to show the Bureau’s reliance on the Garrison Diversion Act was erroneous here. First, Missouri has not shown the Central North Dakota Project is outside the scope of the 1984 Garrison Diversion Final Report. Second, Missouri’s only argument that the Central North Dakota Project involves an out-of-basin transfer is to point to its connection with the Red River Valley Project’s main transmission pipeline. View "State of Missouri v. U.S. Department of Interior" on Justia Law

Stewart obtained his private pilot airman’s certificate in 1978. In 2013, he flew at altitudes and in weather conditions for which he was not authorized. The FAA notified Stewart that it planned to suspend his airman’s certificate. He could: surrender his certificate and begin the 180-day suspension; submit evidence that he had not violated the regulations; discuss the matter informally with an FAA attorney; or request an appeal to the NTSB. Stewart instead sent a letter stating that the agency lacked jurisdiction over private pilots. The FAA suspended Stewart’s certificate and assessed a $5,000 civil penalty for failure to turn in his certificate. Stewart kept flying. When he failed to properly deploy his plane’s landing gear, the FAA flagged his plane for inspection. Stewart did not comply. The FAA suspended the airworthiness certificate for his plane. Stewart kept flying and again landed his plane with the landing gear up. The FAA revoked Stewart’s airman’s certificate and again assessed a civil penalty. Stewart continued flying. The Sixth Circuit affirmed Stewart's convictions for knowingly and willfully serving as an airman without an airman’s certificate authorizing the individual to serve in that capacity, 49 U.S.C. 46306(b)(7), rejecting Stewart’s argument that he was not “without” a certificate because he still had physical possession of his. The statute required Stewart to have FAA permission to fly at the time of the flights in question. View "United States v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Olen Properties Corp. owned commercial property in the City of Newport Beach (the City) within an area known as the Koll Center. The Koll Center was a mixed-use development area, near the John Wayne Airport, San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Reserve, and the University of California, Irvine. It was located within the “Airport Area,” a portion of the City adjacent to John Wayne Airport, governed by the City’s Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. In 2020 and 2021, the City considered and approved the request of Real Party in Interest TPG (KCN) Acquisition, LLC (TPG) to develop a five-story, 312-unit residential housing project (the Project) on an existing surface parking lot serving the Koll Center’s existing commercial tenants. In an effort to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City obtained an addendum (the Addendum) to an existing environmental impact report prepared in 2006 (the 2006 EIR) as part of its general plan update. The Addendum considered a wide range of possible environmental impacts but concluded the Project’s impacts “would either be the same or not substantially greater than those described by the [2006 EIR].” Plaintiff opposed approval of the Project before the City. Among other things, plaintiff argued the City could not rely upon an addendum to the 2006 EIR and was legally required to obtain a subsequent EIR. After the City’s approval of the Project, plaintiff filed suit, seeking a writ of mandate compelling the City to void its approval for violation of CEQA, and for injunctive relief, barring construction at the site. The trial court explained its denial in an extensive written ruling, addressing and rejecting each of plaintiff's arguments. The Court of Appeal concurred with the trial court's judgment and affirmed. View "Olen Properties Corp. v. City of Newport Beach" on Justia Law