Skip to main content

Breach of Contract Suit Against Johnson & Johnson, Plus Immigration, Criminal & Civil Procedure Matters

By FindLaw Staff on August 31, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

US v. Vargas-De Jesus, 09-1519, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for possession with intent to distribute illegal drugs within one thousand feet of a school and related crimes. The court affirmd in part defendant's conviction as to the conspiracy as there was sufficient evidence of post-majority conduct to convict, and it was not plain error for the district court to fail to give the instruction that it could only find him guilty if he ratified and participated in the conspiracy after he turned 18. However, the court vacated in part because the district court lacked jurisdiction over the substantive drug charges, defendant's convictions with respect to those counts are vacated.

 

Next Step Med. Co., Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson Int'l, 09-2077, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to reconsider its order dismissing all of plaintiff's claims with prejudice, citing a magistrate judge's order compelling arbitration, in a medical device supplier's suit against defendant, an unincoporated division of Johnson & Johnson International, for terminating plaintiff's right to serve as defendant's exclusive distributor in Puerto Rico.  In affirming, the court held that the district court's likely belief that the magistrate judge's subsequent order - that the entire case be arbitrated - effectively superseded the recommended denial of injunctive relief, was correct.  Further, the district court was correct to dismiss plaintiff's president's tort claim with prejudice, as the claim has not been extinguished but merely left to the arbitrator.

Lechoslaw v. Bank of America, 09-1425, involved a plaintiff's suit against a bank for damages, claiming that a four-and-a-half month delay in receiving his $31,787.34 disrupted the construction of a motel and restaurant in Poland and caused him severe emotional distress.  In affirming the judgment of the district court, the court held that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proving that the Bank in Poland met the requirements for the exercise of personal jurisdiction, and trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Bank did not waive its defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.  Also, there was no abuse of discretion on the facts in the court's exclusion of the statement as offered against Bank of America (BoA). There was no evidence that BoA violated chapter 93A in any of its dealings with plaintiff, and the district court properly entered judgment in its favor.  And lastly, it was not an abuse of discretion for the courts not to reopen discovery according to the Hague Convention.

Ghouri v. Holder, 09-2707, concerned a Pakistani citizen's petition for review of a BIA's decision affirming an IJ's denial of his application for asylum and related relief.  In denying in part and dismissing in part, the court held that the petitioner's claim that he fears his brother-in-law will  murder him and his wife in an honor killing because his wife converted from Sunni to Shia Islam when she married him, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the claim of asylum is untimely.  Also, substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner failed to show eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT protection.

Related Resources:

Copied to clipboard