SCOTUS Denies Review in Several Federal Practice & Procedure Cases

Here is a listing of some of the cases denied review by the Supreme Court October 2nd touching on civil procedure topics as reported by BNA’s Supreme Court Today:

Bevill v. Spring Communications Co., 163 Fed. Appx. 6 (1st Cir.) (Standing)
Review Denied: 10/02/2006 (75 U.S.L.W. 3035)
Questions Presented: (1) Does corporation's sole shareholder have standing to assert fraud, as individual, in separate and distinct cause of action? (2) Is res judicata no longer relevant in this matter?
Summary: Court affirms district court decision (i) that sole shareholder lacks standing to assert in his individual capacity claims that belong to corporate entity, and (ii) that even if complaint were amended to assert claims in corporate capacity, claims would be barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata.

B. Braun Medical Inc. v. Rogers, 163 Fed. Appx. 500 (9th Cir.) (Remedy for failure to offer new trial in lieu of remittitur)
Review Denied: 1002/2006 (75 U.S.L.W. 3164)
Question Presented: Did Ninth Circuit violate fundamental principles of appellate review, and create conflict with five other courts of appeals, by holding that proper remedy for failure to offer new trial in lieu of remittitur (as required by Seventh Amendment) is to reinstate jury award, thereby imposing very award district court had found to be unlawfully excessive?
Summary: Amount awarded by jury as compensatory damages but reduced by district court as excessive is reinstated as remedy for district court's failure, in violation of Seventh Amendment, to afford prevailing party option of new trial in lieu of reduction of award.

Danial v. Daniels, (5th Cir.) (Jurisdictional amount in controversy)
Review Denied: 10/02/2006 (75 U.S.L.W. 3164)
Question Presented: May interest be included in determining jurisdictional amount in controversy for purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and if so, to what extent?
Summary: In determining whether minimum amount in controversy required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332 for federal diversity jurisdiction--$75,000--has been satisfied, interest may be considered only when it is basis for suit itself.

Mitzi International Handbag & Accessories Ltd. v. Romag Fasteners Inc., 168 Fed. Appx. 425 (Fed. Cir.) (Judgment as a matter of law—Post-verdict motion)
Review Denied: 10/02/2006 (75 U.S.L.W. 3164)
Question Presented: When basis for moving for judgment as matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 arises after close of evidence and after Rule 50(a) motions have been taken and decided by district court, is party precluded from bringing post-verdict motion for judgment as matter of law on that basis pursuant to Rule 50(b)?
Summary: District court judgment denying defendant's motion for judgment as matter of law or, alternatively, new trial, following jury verdict that defendant had willfully infringed plaintiff's patent, is affirmed without comment, district court having reasoned that defendant having failed to move for judgment as matter of law at close of all evidence, it may not do so following entry of judgment.

Oden v. Northern Marianas College, 440 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir.) (Effect of expiration of 15-year appeal period)
Review Denied: 10/02/2006 (75 U.S.L.W. 3164)
Question Presented: Upon expiration of 15-year appeal period provided for in 48 U.S.C. § 1824(a) for appeal from decisions of Supreme Court of Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands to Ninth Circuit, does that court automatically lose jurisdiction of timely filed appeal pending in Ninth Circuit?
Summary: Under federal law conferring jurisdiction on Ninth Circuit over appeals from highest court of Northern Mariana Islands for only 15 years, after which such appeals may be heard only by U.S. Supreme Court, 48 U.S.C. § 1824, Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction, which expired May 1, 2004, extends only to appeals that were completed before May 1, 2004, and does not encompass appeals filed prior to May 1, 2004, that remained pending afterwards.

Readers may visit http://pubs.bna.com/ip/bna/lwt.nsf/StatusCasesDeniedRev?OpenView&Start=1.2.1.1 for a full listing of cases denied review.