Latest Legal News

Case Summaries

Oil & Gas

[03/04] MacClarence v. EPA
In a petition for review of the EPA's order denying petitioner's request that the EPA object to the issuance of a Clean Air Act Title V permit for pollutant-emitting activities at an oil and gas processing facility, the petition is denied where: 1) the EPA Administrator's conclusion that petitioner failed to provide adequate information to support his claim that the entire facility should be aggregated was not arbitrary or capricious; and 2) the Administrator's order denying the petition properly set forth petitioner's burden under 42 U.S.C. section 7661d(b)(2), stating that "to justify exercise of an objection by EPA to a title V permit pursuant to section 7661d(b)(2), a petitioner must demonstrate that the permit is not in compliance with the requirements of the CAA" and later concluding that "the general allegations of the Petitioner in the April 2004 Petition . . . fail to demonstrate a basis for Petitioner's claim that Revision 1 to the GC 1 Permit violates the CAA . . . ."

[03/02] Mac's Shell Serv., Inc. v. Shell Oil Prods. Co.
In an action under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (Act) by service station franchisees, alleging that a petroleum franchisor, Shell, and its assignee had constructively terminated their franchises and constructively failed to renew their franchise relationships by substantially changing the rental terms that the dealers had enjoyed for years, increasing costs for many of them, a circuit court's order partially affirming judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where a franchisee who signs and operates under a renewal agreement with a franchisor may not maintain a constructive nonrenewal claim under the Act. However, the court of appeals' order is reversed in part where a franchisee cannot recover for constructive termination under the Act if the franchisor's allegedly wrongful conduct did not compel the franchisee to abandon its franchise.

[02/26] Resolute Natural Resources Co. v. FERC
In a petition for review of certain orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) declining to investigate allegedly anticompetitive conduct by a refining company involving oil pipelines in New Mexico, the petition is dismissed where FERC decisions not to investigate were not subject to review.

[02/26] Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. v. FERC
In a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) decision to allow a pipeline to change its rates without first obtaining the FERC's approval, the petition is denied where the contract at issue specifically disclaimed the need for FERC approval of rate changes.

Read More

Workers' Comp

[03/05] Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.

[03/03] City of Laguna Beach v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n
In a city's action against an insurance company seeking reimbursement for incurring workers' compensation liability that exceeded its self-insured retention, grant of insurance company's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the addition of subdivision (c)(13) to Ins. Code section 1063.1 did not abrogate Denny's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 104 Cal.App.4th 1433 (2003); 2) the trial court properly invoked the Denny's rule when it granted summary judgment and concluded that the city cannot obtain reimbursement from defendant under section 1063.1(c)(13) as, although this provision renders the obligation of an insolvent excess workers' compensation insurer a "covered claim" that defendant must ordinarily reimburse, defendant need not reimburse a permissibly self-insured employer for benefits paid to an employee for cumulative injury if the employer's liability is based in part on a period of time when the employer was self-insured and chose not to buy excess insurance for the particular risk.

[02/26] Lara v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision against the petitioner and in favor of the defendant is affirmed as, the petitioner, hired twice in the space of 12 months to prune bushes for a diner, was not an employee of the diner at the time he sustained injury, but rather, he was an independent contractor exempt from workers' compensation coverage.

[02/26] Elliott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Decision of the WCAB that plaintiff's employer was not obligated to provide the requested spinal surgery is reversed and remanded as, in light of its en banc decision in Cervantes v. El Aguila Food Products, Inc. (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1336 explicitly denouncing the Brasher holding relied on by the WCAB in this case, the employer is ordered to authorize the requested surgery or object to the treating physician's recommendation under 4062(b) within 10 days of receipt of this order, thereby commencing the spinal surgery second opinion process.

Read More