Skip to main content

Summary Judgment for Defendant Affirmed in Antitrust Action Concerning Group Purchasing Organizations, and Civil Rights, Employment, and Immigration Matters

By FindLaw Staff on August 18, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Camishi v. Holder, No. 09-2503, involved a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing petitioner's appeal from the Immigration Judge's (IJ) order removing him from the U.S. to Albania.  The court denied the petition on the ground that, since the IJ denied the petition on an adverse credibility finding independent of the time bar, and the BIA affirmed the credibility finding, there was no prejudice and petitioner's due process rights under the Fifth Amendment were not violated.

Estrada v. Cypress Semiconductor (Minn.), Inc., No. 09-3005, involved an action following plaintiff's termination for absence, claiming that one of the absences was protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and that defendant improperly counted that absence against her in assessing her attendance.  The court affirmed summary judgment for defendant on the ground that the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant would have made the same decision notwithstanding plaintiff's exercise of her FMLA rights.

M.M. Silta, Inc. v. Cleveland Cliffs, Inc., No. 09-1423, involved a breach of contract action.  The court affirmed the dismissal of the action based on res judicata, holding that 1) a jury in a previous action found that defendant properly terminated the parties' agreement; and 2) the contract unambiguously precluded the post-termination obligations on which plaintiff's claims were premised.

Marshall v. Baggett, No. 09-3147, concerned an action to recover delinquent contributions to an ERISA plan.  The court vacated judgment for plaintiff on the ground that the district court erred in granting the default judgment because the complaint did not support a judgment against defendant in her individual capacity.

Shannon v. Koehler, No. 09-3889, involved an action alleging that defendant-officer violated the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force in arresting plaintiff.  The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to defendant, holding that 1) the facts, construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, established a violation of a constitutional right; and 2) a reasonable official would have known that his actions were unlawful.

Southeast Miss. Hosp. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 09-3325, concerned an antitrust action challenging defendants' contracts with Group Purchasing Organizations (GPO).  The court affirmed summary judgment for defendant on the grounds that 1) the attribution test was inappropriate where competitors offer all of the products packaged by the defendant; 2) no evidence suggests that defendant's catheter prices were, actually or effectively, discounted below cost; and 3) plaintiff did not suffer any injury caused by the GPO contracts.

Related Resources

Copied to clipboard