This case involved a claim filed in bankruptcy court by St. Joseph's Foundation and Barrow Neurological Foundation against debtors Bashas' Inc. and related entities, based on a 2005 letter from the debtors' representative promising $25,000 annually for ten years to support a capital campaign. The bankruptcy court disallowed the claim after sustaining the debtors' objection, ruling that the pledge was not an enforceable contract due to lack of consideration and that promissory estoppel did not apply. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that the foundations provided no bargained-for consideration in exchange for the promise and that they did not detrimentally rely on it, as the project was completed without the full pledged amount. The court also declined to apply a charitable subscription exception to estoppel requirements, noting that even if available, enforcement would not be required to avoid injustice in the bankruptcy context where it could prejudice actual creditors.
The case concerned Arizona judicial candidate Randolph Wolfson’s challenge to provisions of the state Code of Judicial Conduct that barred judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions and from endorsing or campaigning for other political candidates. Wolfson sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the rules violated his First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, upholding the restrictions. The court reasoned that the rules advanced compelling state interests in preserving the actual and perceived impartiality of the judiciary and that those interests outweighed the speech and associational rights of judicial candidates, applying a balancing test drawn from precedent on judicial speech.
This multidistrict litigation involves plaintiffs who allege that their use of Zicam Cold Remedy Intranasal Gel Spray or Swabs caused them to lose their sense of smell (anosmia), asserting various state-law products liability claims including negligence, strict liability, and failure to warn. Defendants moved for summary judgment solely on the issue of general causation, arguing that plaintiffs lacked sufficient evidence that ordinary use of Zicam could deliver a toxic dose capable of damaging olfactory tissue. The court denied the motion, holding that the collective expert opinions on the toxicity of Zicam, its distribution and deposition in the nasal cavity, and the diffuse location of olfactory epithelium created a genuine triable issue of fact as to whether Zicam could cause anosmia in humans. The decision applied the standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and state substantive law requiring proof of general causation in products liability cases, while noting that admitted expert testimony under Daubert can still support a jury finding of scientific possibility even without precise quantitative data.
The case concerned whether Arizona’s Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Act permits an insurer to offset underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits by amounts already paid under the medical expense coverage in the same policy. Plaintiffs, who had received medpay benefits after an accident and then sought UIM coverage, challenged the insurer’s denial based on a non-duplication clause in the policy. The court denied class certification because the proposed class of American Standard insureds numbered only three, failing the numerosity requirement. On the merits, the court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the offset was unenforceable under the statute as interpreted in Cundiff v. Farmers Ins. Co., which limits deductions from UIM coverage to liability limits only.
This case involves homebuyers who purchased properties from KB Home in Arizona and allege that KB Home and Countrywide/Landsafe conspired through a joint venture to inflate appraisals using non-comparable sales data, enabling sales at above-market prices; the plaintiffs brought civil RICO claims along with claims under California's Unfair Competition Law and for unjust enrichment. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing all claims by the Patron plaintiffs, dismissing the UCL and unjust enrichment claims for the remaining plaintiffs, and allowing the RICO claims of the remaining plaintiffs to proceed. It held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing based on the alleged $400 appraisal fees, that Arizona law rather than California law governed the UCL claims due to the most substantial relationship to the claims, and that valid contracts with implied covenants of good faith barred the unjust enrichment claims. The court denied as moot the plaintiffs' motion to amend the scheduling order.
This case involves the loss of valuable household goods by fire during an interstate shipment from Illinois to Arizona and California. After paying the insured claim, Pacific Indemnity sued the carriers Pickens Kane and Atlas under the Carmack Amendment for the declared $1 million value plus state-law claims of negligence and breach of contract. The court granted summary judgment on liability against both carriers under the Carmack Amendment, held Pickens Kane liable for the full declared value, dismissed the state claims as preempted, and apportioned further liability between the carriers according to their bills of lading and tariffs. The core reasoning was that the shipper established the statutory prima facie case, the carriers admitted liability, and federal law exclusively governs interstate shipping contracts.
