Case Summaries
Tax-exempt Organizations
[08/24] Worldmark, The Club v. Wyndham Resort Dev. Corp.
Trial court's denial of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation's petition to set aside a member's section 8330 demand on the ground that it had satisfied its statutory obligations in proposing an alternative is affirmed and modified where: 1) the information the member seeks, including email addresses, shall be made available to him in electronic form at his option and no further written demand is necessary; 2) if any member's address is not in electronic form, the corporation shall provide a written copy of such address to the member; 3) the member or his appointed representative must acknowledge in writing his agreement not to use or allow use of the membership information for commercial or other purposes not reasonably related to the affairs of the corporation.
[08/16] Found. of Human Understanding v. US
United States Court of Federal Claims' decision that a nonprofit organization did not qualify as a "church" under section 170(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code for the period from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2000 is affirmed where: 1) the record supports the trial court's finding that the in-person services conducted during the years in question were merely incidental to plaintiff's primary purposes, and were therefore insufficient to demonstrate that the organization was a "church" for tax purposes; and 2) disseminating religious information, whether through print or broadcast media, does not fulfill the associational role required to qualify as a "church" under section 170.
[08/13] ACORN v. US
In an action challenging provisions in several federal appropriations laws barring the distribution of federal funds to ACORN and its affiliates, subsidiaries, and allied organizations, a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed in part where, in light of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) actual and continuing responsibility to oversee the management of the budgets of Executive Branch agencies, and its consequent impact on the plaintiffs' reputation, plaintiffs showed sufficient injury to bring suit against the Director of the OMB. However, the injunction is vacated in part where: 1) plaintiffs failed to show that the appropriations laws constituted "punishment" under the functional test for a bill of attainder; and 2) the legislative record sufficient to demonstrate "punishment" cumulatively with the historical and functional tests of punishment.
[08/12] Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med. v. McDonald's Corp.
In a nonprofit organization's suit against several chain restaurant corporations, seeking an injunction, civil penalties, and declaratory judgment that each of the restaurants was in violation of Proposition 65 and was required to disclose that its grilled chicken contained a carcinogen, trial court's entry of judgment in favor of the restaurants is reversed where: 1) the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) does not preempt Proposition 65's Safe Harbor Warning because there is no conflict between the warning and any federal policy concerning chicken; 2) the language of the Safe Harbor Warning, as already provided in the restaurants, is presumptively clear and reasonable; 3) the proposed warnings regarding "well cooked" or "thoroughly cooked" chicken, on their face, are not clear and reasonable; 4) the proposed warning mentioning "grilled chicken" does not conflict with federal policy; and 5) the Cooking Provision does not eliminate the possibility that a warning would be required.
[08/11] Howard v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co.
In plaintiff's suit against insurers to recover on a judgment arising from an underlying case against a Catholic Bishop that retained a priest in his diocese who molested plaintiff, trial court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) defendant insurer had a duty to indemnify the Bishop for damages assessed in the underlying litigation and plaintiff, as a judgment creditor, was entitled to recover against the insurer on that judgment; 2) trial court properly calculated the amount of recovery on the judgment; 3) defendant breached its duty to defend and owed contribution to the defending insurers; 4) defendant breached its duty to settle the underlying case; 5) defendant acted in bad faith; 6) bad faith damages were properly calculated; 7) Brandt fees were properly awarded; 8) plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest; 9) trial court erred in awarding JAMS fees to plaintiffs; 10) trial court did not err in awarding plaintiffs' deposition costs; and 11) trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding other costs.
[08/10] Gen. Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. McGill
In the Seventh-Day Adventists Church's trademark infringement suit against a defendant based on his use of their protected marks in advertising and promoting his breakaway church, district court's entry of default judgment against defendant for refusing to appear for a court-ordered mediation, denial of defendant's motion to dismiss and a grant of partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs are affirmed where: 1) the district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction as this case can be resolved based on trademark law without addressing any doctrinal issues; 2) the text of the statute makes clear that Congress intended RFRA to apply only to suits in which the government is a party; 3) judicial estoppel does not apply to defendant's argument that "Seventh-Day Adventism" refers to religion and is therefore a generic term that cannot be trademarked; and 4) plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on the likelihood of confusion, and as such, district court's judgment as to the mark "Seventh-Day Adventist" is affirmed.
[08/10] Rock Energy Coop. v. Village of Rockton
In a non-profit, consumer-owned utility company's suit against a village seeking a declaratory judgment, claiming that the village does not have proper authority to purchase or condemn assets used by natural gas and electric utilities in the area, district court's dismissal of the suit is affirmed where: 1) the chance of future eminent domain proceedings in this case is too remote to support the claim that plaintiff is trying to litigate; and 2) state court's conclusion that, in litigation between the same parties, that the MOU agreement is unenforceable is entitled to preclusive effect under Illinois law, and to the extent that the MOU has a role to play in this case, it includes a clear choice-of-forum clause directing all litigation to the state court.
[08/03] US v. Proj. on Govt. Oversight
In an action charging a nonprofit and an Interior Department economist under 18 U.S.C. section 209(a), which prohibits giving or receiving any contribution to or supplementation of salary "as compensation for [an individual's] services as an officer or employee of the executive branch," judgment for plaintiff is reversed as a defendant's intent to give or receive compensation for government services is a required element of the offense.
[07/23] Providence Yakima Med. Ctr. v. Sebelius
In an action brought by five not-for-profit hospitals, each recipients of Medicare direct graduate medical education payments for approved family medicine residency programs, the district court's order finding the Secretary's methodology for calculating the hospitals' base-year per resident amounts under 42 C.F.R. section 413.86(e)(4)(I) (1989) arbitrary and capricious is vacated in part where, because the method was "ad hoc" and did not meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. section 1395oo(f)(1), a grant of expedited judicial review was erroneous and the district court should not have determined it had jurisdiction.
[07/16] Blumenthal v. FERC
In a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's order approving a utility company's executive compensation, the petition is denied where: 1) petitioner provided no good reason for the court to create a new due process right to an evidentiary hearing where none existed; and 2) even if the court would have used a different comparison group in determining the executive's compensation, the court could not say that FERC’s decision to accept the utility's analysis was unreasonable.
[07/02] River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest
In a church's suit against a village under the equal-terms provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, seeking a preliminary injunction against the village's enforcement of a zoning ordinance that excludes new noncommercial uses from its district, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in an en banc decision as, if religious and secular land uses that are treated the same from the standpoint of an accepted zoning criterion, such as "commercial district," or "residential district," or "industrial district," that is enough to rebut an equal-terms claim and thus, in this case, to show that the church is unlikely to prevail in a full litigation.
[06/30] NEW MEXICO YOUTH ORGANIZED, a project of the Center for Civic Policy, and Southwest Organizing Project, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Mary HERRERA, in her capacity as Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellant,
In an action by political committees challenging New Mexico's ability to regulate plaintiffs pursuant to the New Mexico Campaign Reporting Act (NMCRA), summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where the organizations could not be
constitutionally said to have a primary purpose of influencing elections -- as measured by either a comprehensive examination of their activities or by their satisfaction of the $500 threshold -- such that they could be subject to the full range of disclosure and report provisions.
[06/16] US v. Graham
In defendant's motion for a certificate of innocence after his conviction for embezzlement of his employer was overturned, district court's denial of the motion is affirmed as defendant has not demonstrated that the court abused its discretion in concluding that he failed to meet his burden under the second clause of section 2513(a)(2), that he did not, by misconduct or neglect, cause or bring about his own prosecution.
[05/26] Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc. v. Happening House Ventures
In a free medical clinic's suit for breach of fiduciary duty and other claims against its founder and a limited partnership, formed to assist the clinic by acquiring real estate, denial of defendant's special motion to strike is vacated as acts that are protected under the SLAPP statute are not "merely incidental" to a cause of action simply because they represent a relatively small number of many alleged wrongful acts.
[03/23] Fleszar v. U.S. Dep't of Labor
Petition for review a decision of the Administrative Review Board declining to investigate plaintiff's allegation that her termination from employment by the American Medical Association violated section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (a whistleblower-protection provision), is denied as the AMA, a nonprofit membership association that does not issue stock, is not covered.
