Restitution Order Against Defendant To Pay Loomis-Fargo For Robbery Affirmed, Plus Tort & Immigration Law Matters

By FindLaw Staff on September 10, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

US v. Salas-Fernandez, 08-2015, concerned a challenge to the district court's judgment ordering defendant to pay $157,370.83 in restitution to Loomis-Fargo, in a conviction of the defendant for his participation in an armed robbery of a Loomis-Fargo bank truck, using a firearm and threats of violence.  In affirmin, the court held that there is no abuse of discretion, let alone any plain error, in the district court's order to pay restitution forthwith.


Huang v. Holder, 10-1100, concerned a Chinese citizen's petition for review of the BIA's affirmance of an IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal.  In denying the petition, the court held that the IJ's credibility determination was plainly predicated on reasoned consideration, explained cogently in the IJ's decision, and supported by the record.  Further, there was no error in BIA's finding that a remand was unnecessary since petitioner does not allege other resistance or claim that as a basis for his fear of returning to China.

Coons v. Indus. Knife Co., Inc., 09-1489, concerned a challenge to the district court's reversal of a $328,000 judgment in plaintiff's favor and award of attorney's fees and expenses to defendant in connection with plaintiff's untimely designation of expert witnesses, in plaintiff's suit under various state law product liability theories, for suffering a serious hand injury while changing an industrial paper-cutting knife at his place of employment. In affirming the judgment, the court held that, plaintiff's claim that defendant waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to raise it through a timely pre-trial motion or a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is easily rejected as a party does not waive a properly pleaded defense by failing to raise it by motion before trial.  The court also held that the claims against defendant are time-barred as a matter of law and the amended complaint does not relate back to the original complaint.  Further, district court did not abuse its discretion, either in awarding fees in the first place or in determining the amount of the award.

Related Resources:

Copied to clipboard