Tag: Litigation

Trouble In Paradise: Florida Court Rules That Selling Bitcoin Is Money Transmission

The growing popularity of virtual currency over the last several years has raised a host of legislative and regulatory issues. A key question is whether and how a state’s money transmitter law applies to activities involving virtual currency. Many states have answered this – albeit in a non-uniform way – through legislation or regulation, including regulatory guidance documents. For instance, Georgia and Wyoming have amended their money transmitter statutes to include or exclude virtual currencies explicitly. In other states, such as Texas and Tennessee, the state’s primary financial regulator has issued formal guidance. In New York, the Department of Financial Services issued an entirely separate regulation for virtual currencies. Still, in others, neither the legislature nor the relevant regulator has provided any insight into how the state’s money transmitter law may apply.

In most states, the judicial branch has not yet weighed in on the question. But Florida is an exception. On January 30, 2019, in State v. Espinoza, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal interpreted the state’s money transmission law broadly and held that selling bitcoin directly to another person is covered under the law. [1] The decision will have broad implications for the virtual currency industry in Florida.

BACKGROUND: MIAMI BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AND MICHELL ESPINOZA

In December 2013, the Miami Beach Police Department (“MBPD”) perused an Internet website that provided a directory of buyers and sellers of bitcoin. In an undercover capacity, an MBPD agent contacted one of the users, Michell Espinoza. Shortly thereafter, the agent arranged to meet and purchase bitcoin from Espinoza in exchange for cash. The MBPD agent who purchased the bitcoin implied that he would use the bitcoin to fund illicit activities. One month later, the MBPD made a second purchase from Espinoza, telling him that the bitcoin would be used to purchase stolen credit card numbers. After a third and fourth transaction, the MBPD arrested Espinoza. The State of Florida charged him with two counts of money laundering and one count of engaging in the business of a money transmitter without a license. Espinoza moved to dismiss the charges, arguing, among other things, that Florida’s money transmitter law does not apply to bitcoin. The trial court agreed and dismissed all counts against Espinoza.

THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT’S OPINION: SELLING BITCOIN CONSTITUTES MONEY TRANSMISSION

Florida appealed, and the appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling. The court started its analysis noting that the state’s money transmitter law requires anyone engaging in a “money services business” to be licensed. [2] A “money services business” is defined as “any person . . . who acts as a payment instrument seller, . . . or money transmitter.” [3] The court held that bitcoin is regulated by Florida’s money transmitter law, and, as a result, Espinoza was both “acting as a payment instrument seller” and “engaging in the business of a money transmitter.”

Under the Florida statute, a “payment instrument seller” is an entity that sells a “payment instrument.” [4] The phrase “payment instrument” is defined to include a variety of instruments, including “payment of money, or monetary value whether or not negotiable.” [5] The phrase “monetary value,” in turn, is defined as “a medium of exchange, whether or not redeemable in currency.” [6] The court interpreted these definitions – which it described as “plain and unambiguous” – to conclude bitcoin falls under the definition of “payment instrument.” To reach that conclusion, it reasoned that bitcoin, which is redeemable for currency, is a medium of exchange, which falls under the definition of “monetary value.” Therefore, it falls under the definition of “payment instrument.” [7] To purportedly bolster its point, the court noted that several businesses in the Miami area accepted bitcoin as a form of payment. It also pointed to a final order from the Florida Office of Financial Regulation (“OFR”) in which OFR granted Coinbase a money transmitter license. The court noted that Coinbase provides a service “where a Coinbase user sends fiat currency to another Coinbase user to buy bitcoins.” “Like the Coinbase user,” the court reasoned, the MBPD detective “paid cash to Espinoza to buy bitcoins.”

The court also concluded Espinoza was acting as a money transmitter. Under the Florida statute, a money transmitter is an entity that “receives currency, monetary value, or payment instruments for the purpose of transmitting the same by any means….” [8] Espinoza argued he fell outside this definition because he did not receive payment for the bitcoin for the purpose of transmitting the same to a third party. The court disagreed. It held that the law does not require the presence of a third party because the definition of money transmitter does not mention a third party, either expressly or implicitly. [9] It also disagreed with the trial court and Espinoza’s “bilateral limitation,” which would require Espinoza to have both received and transmitted the same form of currency, monetary value, or payment instrument. According to the court, Espinoza fell within the ambit of the law because he received fiat for the purpose of transmitting bitcoin. It explained that the phrase “the same” in the definition of “money transmission” modifies the list of payment methods, and the use of “or” in that list of payment methods – “currency, monetary value, or payment instrument” – means that “any of the three qualifies interchangeably on either side of the transaction.”

As additional support for its position, the court distinguished a final order entered into by OFR: In re Petition for Declaratory Statement Moon, Inc. According to the court’s description, Moon sought to establish a bitcoin kiosk program under which a Moon customer would pay fiat to a licensed money services business in exchange for a PIN, and the customer would then enter the PIN into a Moon kiosk, which would initiate a transfer of bitcoins to the user from a Moon bitcoin address. Once the PIN was redeemed, the licensed entity would pay Moon. OFR determined Moon did not a license. The court distinguished the Moon order because “Moon merely facilitated the transfer of bitcoins through the use of a licensed money services business,” whereas “[h]ere, no licensed money services business was utilized in the exchange of U.S. dollars for bitcoins that occurred between Espinoza and” the MBPD agent.

COUNTERPOINTS TO THE COURT’S OPINION

Several state legislatures or regulators have amended or interpreted their money transmitter laws to apply to virtual currency, but those actions do not take the form of a judicial opinion. Here, the Third District Court provided its specific reasoning for reaching its conclusions. It remains to be seen whether Espinoza will seek review from the Florida Supreme Court, but there are at least a few points in the court’s opinion that warrant further review and analysis.

First, Espinoza did not receive money for the purpose of transmitting it. He received it in exchange for selling bitcoin; he received it for the purpose of possessing it. The court rejected Espinoza’s attempt to impose a third-party requirement, but the most natural reading of the phrase “transmitting” would require Espinoza to send onward whatever value he received. Merriam-Webster defines “transmit” as “to send or convey from one person or place to another.” By using the words “receive” and “transmit,” the Florida law focuses on the act of sending money to another person and excludes the act of selling money or monetary value. If simply selling property were sufficient to trigger the money transmitter law, the statute would likely sweep far more broadly than intended. Here, Espinoza was acting as a merchant selling goods. This would not constitute money transmission under any reasonable reading of the law. Indeed, some states (and FinCEN) have recognized that a party selling its own inventory of virtual currency in a two-party transaction is not a money transmitter.

Second, the court’s conclusion is further undercut by considering the Moon proceeding the court discusses. The opinion notes “the PIN provided by the licensed money services business to Moon’s customers provided a mechanism by which the exchange of U.S. dollars for bitcoins could be identifiable.” The PIN could arguably be classified as a payment instrument because it is an “other instrument” or “monetary value.” If transmission to a third party is not required, as the court holds, then Moon should have needed a license when it received the PIN and then transmitted bitcoins back to the user that was redeeming the PIN. But that wasn’t the conclusion OFR reached.

Third, the court’s interpretation of how OFR would treat Espinoza’s actions is questionable. In 2014, OFR issued a consumer alert stating that “[v]irtual currency and the organizations using them are not regulated by the OFR.” [10] In addition, in January 2018, OFR released another consumer alert regarding cryptocurrency, stating that “[cryptocurrencies] are subject to little or no regulation,” which further indicates OFR does not interpret the money transmission law to cover cryptocurrencies. [11] The court does not acknowledge these statements. Although the court focuses on an OFR order regarding Coinbase, that order granted Coinbase a license and listed a variety of activities in which Coinbase was engaged or planned to engage. The order does not specify what specific activity was licensable, but it is likely that a license was granted because of the receipt and transmission of fiat currency.

CONCLUSION

If Espinoza appeals, the case could go to the Florida Supreme Court, where the virtual currency industry will receive a more definitive answer. In the meantime, virtual currency businesses should be aware that the Florida Attorney General’s Office interprets the state’s money transmitter act to regulate bilateral sales of virtual currency for fiat currency and is willing to prosecute at least certain cases of unauthorized sales. As of now, Florida’s Third District Court agrees. How the Espinoza case concludes and whether and how the Florida legislature responds will be important to the virtual currency industry.

NOTES

[1] — So. 3d –, 2019 WL 361893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

[2] FLA. STAT. § 560.125.

[3] Id. § 560.103(22).

[4] Id. § 560.103(30).

[5] Id. § 560.103(29) (emphasis added).

[6] Id. § 560.103(21).

[7] The court principally discusses whether bitcoin falls under Florida’s money transmitter law. In a few instances, it also references “virtual currency” generally, but it is not clear how broadly it was intending to apply its holding.

[8] Id. § 560.103(23).

[9] As a counterpoint, the court noted that the Financial Crime Enforcement Network’s (“FinCEN”) definition of money transmitter explicitly includes a third party requirement because it defines a money transmitter as someone that accepts value from one person and transmits value to “another location or person by any means….” 31 C.F.R. § 1010.100(ff)(5)(i)(A).

[10] Consumer Alert: Update on Virtual Currency, Office of Financial Regulation, Sept. 17, 2014.

[11] Consumer Alert: Cryptocurrency, Office of Financial Regulation, Jan. 17, 2018.

 

Copyright 2019 K&L Gates

Supreme Court Update: SCOTUS Grants CERT on Issue of Punitive Damages for Unseaworthiness and Denies CERT on Maritime Contract Test

Last month, the US Supreme Court decided to take up whether punitive damages are recoverable in general maritime law claims for unseaworthiness when it granted certiorari in Batterton v. Dutra Group, 880 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2018), writ granted Docket No. 18-266 (Dec. 7, 2018). As we reported in June 2018, Batterton brings the issue into focus for the high court because it is directly at odds with a 2014 US Fifth Circuit decision that held that punitive damages are nonpecuniary and therefore not recoverable in unseaworthiness actions. McBride v. Estis Wells Serv., 768 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2014).

The US Ninth Circuit in Batterton relied on a prior decision from that circuit, Evich v. Morris, 819 F.2d 256 (9th Cir. 1987), which held that punitive damages are available for general maritime law claims of unseaworthiness if certain conditions are present (i.e., when the conduct constitutes reckless or callous disregard for the rights of others, gross negligence, actual malice, or criminal indifference). The Ninth Circuit also relied on the broad principle announced in Atlantic Sounding v. Townsend, 557 US 404 (2009), that punitive damages have been available under the general maritime law and should, therefore, be available in unseaworthiness actions even though that case concerned the refusal of an employer to pay maintenance and cure benefits to a seaman.

The Fifth Circuit in McBride, however, relied on an earlier Supreme Court decision in answering the same question. In Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 US 119 (1990), the Supreme Court held that a seaman’s damages are limited to pecuniary loss. The Fifth Circuit determined that punitive damages are nonpecuniary, and therefore are not recoverable for an unseaworthiness claim.

The Supreme Court will take up the question in due course, and we will continue to provide updates on this case, as punitive damages can impact the value of a case and present insurance coverage issues.

Separately, the Supreme Court denied cert in December 2018 from In re Crescent Energy Servs., L.L.C., 896 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 2018), writ denied Docket No. 18-436 (Dec. 10, 2018), the first Fifth Circuit case that applied the new test for determining whether a contract in the oil and gas context is maritime since the en banc court changed the test in In re Larry Doiron Inc., 879 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2018). We summarized that line of cases in our August 2018 newsletter. The test under Doiron is two-pronged:

  1. Is the contract to provide services to facilitate the drilling or production of oil and gas on navigable waters?
  2. If the answer to the above question is “yes,” does the contract provide for, or do the parties expect, a vessel to play a substantial role in the completion of the contract? If so, then the contract is maritime in nature.

In In re Crescent Energy Servs., L.L.C., the issue presented on appeal was whether a contract to provide services to oil wells located on fixed platforms in navigable waters within a state is a “maritime” contract when a vessel plays a substantial role in the performance of the contract. The Fifth Circuit applied the Doiron test and answered in the affirmative, finding that the contract was indeed maritime. The Supreme Court denied cert, and the new test for a maritime contract in the oil and gas context adopted by Doiron continues to apply. Whether a contract is maritime in nature plays a role in the enforceability of indemnity obligations among the parties because indemnity provisions are generally enforceable under maritime law, but are often prohibited under oilfield anti-indemnity acts in Texas and Louisiana. If a contract is nonmaritime, then state law applies, which can bar enforcement of the indemnity provisions in the contract.

 

© 2019 Jones Walker LLP
This post was written by Jeanne Amy of Jones Walker LLP.
Read more litigation news on the National Law Review’s Litigation Page.

Six Flags Raises Red Flags: Illinois Supreme Court Weighs In On BIPA

On January 25, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a person can seek liquidated damages based on a technical violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), even if that person has suffered no actual injury as a result of the violation. Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. No. 123186 (Ill. Jan. 25, 2019) presents operational and legal issues for companies that collect fingerprints, facial scans, or other images that may be considered biometric information.

As we have previously addressed, BIPA requires Illinois businesses that collect biometric information from employees and consumers to, among other things, adopt written policies, notify individuals, and obtain written releases. A handful of other states impose similar requirements, but the Illinois BIPA is unique because it provides individuals whose data has been collected with a private right of action for violations of the statute.

Now, the Illinois Supreme Court has held that even technical violations may be actionable.  BIPA requires that businesses use a “reasonable standard of care” when storing, transmitting, or protecting biometric data, so as to protect the privacy of the person who provides the data. The rules are detailed. Among other things, BIPA requires businesses collecting or storing biometric data to do the following:

  • establish a written policy with a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information;
  • notify individuals in writing that the information is being collected or stored and the purpose and length of time for which the biometric identifier will be collected, stored, and used;
  • obtain a written release from the individual; and
  • not disclose biometric information to a third party without the individual’s consent.

The Illinois Supreme Court has now held that a plaintiff may be entitled to up to $5,000 in liquidated damages if a company violates any of these requirements, even without proof of actual damages.

In Rosenbach, the plaintiff’s son’s fingerprint was scanned so that he could use his fingerprint to enter the Six Flags theme park under his season pass. Neither the plaintiff nor her son signed a written release or were given written notice as required by BIPA. The plaintiff did not allege that she or her son suffered a specific injury but claimed that if she had known that Six Flags collected biometric data, she would not have purchased a pass for her son. The plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of all similarly situated theme park customers and sued for maximum damages ($5,000 per violation) under BIPA. The Illinois appellate court held that plaintiff could not maintain a BIPA action because technical violations did not render a party “aggrieved,” a key element of a BIPA claim.

In a unanimous decision, the Illinois Supreme Court disagreed. The court held that “an individual need not allege some actual injury or adverse effect, beyond violation of his or her rights under the Act, in order to qualify as an ‘aggrieved’ person and be entitled to seek liquidated damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the Act.” Even more pointedly, the court held that when a private entity fails to comply with BIPA’s requirements regarding the collection, retention, disclosure, and destruction of a person’s biometric identifiers or biometric information, that violation alone – in the absence of any actual pecuniary or other injury—constitutes an invasion, impairment, or denial of the person’s statutory rights.

This decision – along with the 200 class actions already filed – shows how important it is for vendors and companies using fingerprint timeclocks or other technologies that may collect biometric information to be aware of BIPA’s requirements.

 

© 2019 Schiff Hardin LLP

EPA Sued to Issue Pending Methylene Chloride Prohibition Rule in Final

On January 14, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, the Vermont Public Interest Group; Safer Chemicals, Health Families; and two individuals (plaintiffs) followed up on their earlier notice of intent to sue and filed a complaint against Andrew Wheeler and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to compel EPA to perform its “mandatory duty” to “address the serious and imminent threat to human health presented by paint removal products containing methylene chloride.”  Plaintiffs bring the action under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 20(a) which states that “any person may commence a civil action … against the Administrator to compel the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this Act which is not discretionary.”  Plaintiffs allege that EPA has not performed its mandatory duty under TSCA Sections 6(a) and 7.  TSCA Section 6(a) gives EPA the authority to regulate substances that present “an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” and TSCA Section 7 gives EPA the authority to commence civil actions for seizure and/or relief of “imminent hazards.”  Plaintiffs’ argument to direct EPA to ban methylene chloride is centered on the issue of risk to human health only, however, stating that it presents “an unreasonable risk to human health” as confirmed by EPA.  Under TSCA Section 20(b)(2), plaintiffs are required to submit a notice of intent to sue 60 days prior to filing a complaint which they did on October 31, 2018.

Background

On January 19, 2017, EPA issued a proposed rule under TSCA Section 6 to prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of methylene chloride for consumer and most types of commercial paint and coating removal (82 Fed. Reg. 7464).  EPA also proposed to prohibit the use of methylene chloride in these commercial uses; to require manufacturers (including importers), processors, and distributors, except for retailers, of methylene chloride for any use to provide downstream notification of these prohibitions throughout the supply chain; and to require recordkeeping.  EPA relied on a risk assessment of methylene chloride published in 2014, the scope of which EPA stated included “consumer and commercial paint and coating removal.”  The proposed rule stated that in the risk assessment, EPA identified risks from inhalation exposure including “neurological effects such as cognitive impairment, sensory impairment, dizziness, incapacitation, and loss of consciousness (leading to risks of falls, concussion, and other injuries)” and, based on EPA’s analysis of worker and consumer populations’ exposures to methylene chloride in paint and coating removal, EPA proposed “a determination that methylene chloride and NMP in paint and coating removal present an unreasonable risk to human health.”  The comment period on the proposed rule was extended several times, ending in May 2017, and in September 2017 EPA held a workshop to help inform EPA’s understanding of methylene chloride use in furniture refinishing.

No further action was taken to issue the rule in final, however, until December 21, 2018, when EPA sent the final rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.  On the same day, EPA also sent another rule to OMB for review titled “Methylene Chloride; Commercial Paint and Coating Removal Training, Certification and Limited Access Program,” which has not previously been included in EPA’s Regulatory Agenda; very little is known about this rule.  Plaintiffs do not refer to it in the complaint but there is speculation, based on its title, that this second rule may allow for some commercial uses of methylene chloride.

Commentary

We recall the lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC) in 2018 challenging EPA’s draft New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework document as a final rule.  The current action further reflects the commitment of detractors of EPA to use the courts and every other means available to oppose the Administration’s TSCA implementation efforts.  Whether and when this court will respond is unclear.  What is clear is that the case will be closely watched, as the outcome will be an important signal to the TSCA stakeholder community regarding the utility of TSCA Section 20(a)(2) to force non-discretionary EPA actions that the Administration may be disinclined to take.

 

©2019 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Export Sanctions List: Know Your Customer

If your company sells products to customers or distributors located in foreign countries during this time of sanctions and export controls, you should consider the surprising case of Cobham Holdings Inc. a cautionary tale.

The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (“OFAC”) publishes a sanctions list of foreign individuals and entities to which U.S. companies may not sell goods or services without first obtaining an export license. OFAC may fine the U.S. companies that violate these sanction regulations. Prudent companies check the OFAC sanctions list before selling products to foreign customers. In fact, many companies have purchased software that searches the sanctions list for prohibited individuals and entities. If your foreign customer is not found on the sanctions list, your company is free to sell products to that customer.

That’s what Cobham Holdings Inc. thought, but on November 27, 2018 they settled a case with OFAC that involved sales to a foreign customer that was not on the sanctions list. Cobham agreed to pay a fine of $87,507 for exporting approximately $745,000 worth of silicon switches to Almaz Antey Telecommunications LLC in Russia between 2014 and 2015 when that entity was not named on OFAC’s list of “Specifically Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons”. Cobham used software to search for OFAC sanctions, the customer came up clean, and Cobham shipped the goods.

Cobham used the software to search for “Almaz Antey Telecom” but not “Almaz Antey.” If it would have searched for the latter, there were numerous hits for entities under the Almaz Antey umbrella, including the entity allegedly responsible for providing the missile that shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over Ukraine in 2014. Upon further investigation, OFAC determined that Almaz Antey owned 51% of Almaz Antey Telecommunications LLC. As a result, OFAC initially informed Cobham that it would face potential fines up to $1.9 million.

Cobham was able to reduce the potential fine by agreeing to utilize new and improved screening software, along with a business intelligence tool and new internal checks for high risk transactions. Given that companies now know (or should know) of the potential pitfalls of using these software solutions as a stand-alone procedure, OFAC may not be so generous to the next company to run afoul of its sanctions and export controls through negligence or inadvertent software errors.

This case highlights not only the dangers of exclusively relying on software solutions to search the combined sanctions list, but the inherent risk of the vast number of related entities and the difficulty of understanding their ownership structure. Even if your customers come up clean on the sanctions search, if they are owned more than 50% by a sanctioned entity, then the transaction is still prohibited. Best efforts must be used to ensure that neither the foreign customer nor its majority owner is on the OFAC sanctions list, and a simple software solution or minimal approach may not be enough. A thorough analysis of all relevant facts and information related to your customers and sanctioned entities is vital to ensure your company will not run into the same snare as Cobham.

 

©2019 von Briesen & Roper, s.c
Read more legal news at the National Law Review.

Fourth Circuit Expands Title IX Liability for Harassment Through Anonymous Online Posts

The Fourth Circuit recently held that universities could be liable for Title IX violations if they fail to adequately respond to harassment that occurs through anonymous-messaging apps.

The case, Feminist Majority Foundation v. Hurley, concerned messages sent through the now-defunct app Yik Yak to the individual plaintiffs, who were students at the University of Mary Washington. Yik Yak was a messaging app that allowed users to anonymously post to discussion threads.

Because of the app’s location feature, which  allowed users to see posts within a 5 mile radius, the Court concluded that the University had substantial control over the context of the harassment because the threatening messages originated on or within the immediate vicinity of campus. Additionally, some of the posts at issue were posted using the University’s wireless network, and thus necessarily originated on campus.

The Court rejected the University’s argument that it was unable to control the harassers because the posts were anonymous. It held that the University could be liable if it never sought to discern whether it could identify the harassers.

The dissent encouraged the University to appeal the decision stating that “the majority’s novel and unsupported decision will have a profound effect, particularly on institutions of higher education . . .  Institutions, like the university, will be compelled to venture into an ethereal world of non-university forums at great cost and significant liability, in order to avoid the Catch-22 Title IX liability the majority now proclaims. The university should not hesitate to seek further review.”

 

Copyright © 2019 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.
This post was written by Kathleen E. Dion of Robinson & Cole LLP.
Read more about college and university legal news on the National Law Review’s Public Education Page.

New Jersey Appellate Panel Countenances Beach Easement Condemnations for Federal Funding

A New Jersey appeals court recently upheld the Township of Long Beach’s exercise of eminent domain to acquire beachfront access easements in the consolidated appeal of Twp. of Long Beach v. Tomasi, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) – the latest chapter in a series of disputes between coastal New Jersey municipalities and owners of beachfront property within those municipalities.

The Township of Long Beach sought federal funding pursuant to the “Sandy Act,” which authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers (“Army Corps”) to protect the New Jersey shoreline through beach replenishment and dune construction projects funded either in whole or in part by the federal government. See Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Sandy Act), Pub. L. No. 113-2, 127 Stat. 4. In order to obtain such federal participation and funding, the township was required to comply with conditions set forth in the Army Corps’ engineering regulations, including the requirement that participating municipalities provide “reasonable public access rights-of-way” to the beach, defined as “approximately every one-half mile or less.” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ER 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook 3-20 (2000); see also N.J.A.C. 7:7-16.9.

As the township’s shoreline did not have the required public access, it resolved to obtain public access easements in various locations to achieve compliance with the Army Corps and NJDEP regulations such that it would be eligible for inclusion in an ongoing shoreline protection project undertaken by those entities. Accordingly, the township passed appropriate resolutions authorizing it to condemn and acquire via eminent domain four public access beach easements, including a ten-foot-wide strip of land along the defendants’ properties. After unsuccessfully negotiating with the defendants to purchase the easements, the township initiated condemnation proceedings in the Superior Court, giving rise to the Tomasilitigation.

In September 2017 the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the township and held that it had properly exercised its eminent domain power in acquiring the beach easements for public use. The defendants appealed and sought reversal based on their contention that the township was unable to establish either necessity or proper public purpose for the condemnations. More specifically, the defendants argued that reasonable beach access already existed in the township such that there was no necessity to condemn the easements under the Public Trust Doctrine or otherwise; and that the stated impetus for the condemnations, i.e. seeking federal funding, could not constitute a viable public purpose.

On December 20, 2018, the two-judge appellate panel issued its decision affirming the lower court and rejecting both of the defendant-appellants’ primary arguments. The court noted its “limited and deferential” review of municipal exercises of eminent domain power, cited the traditionally broad conceptual scope of public use, and held that the township’s undertaking to protect its shoreline – including conforming to state or federal requirements to obtain project funding – was a proper public use or purpose.

There are several relevant takeaways from the Tomasi decision, though they should be understood with an important caveat. The court resolved the narrow question before it without engaging in a comprehensive or detailed legal analysis and as a result, land use practitioners and municipal personnel should be cautious not to overstate the holding in this brief unpublished opinion. Nevertheless, the Tomasi decision is significant based on its factual distinctions from more traditional beach easement litigations.

Specifically, the easements at issue in Tomasi were for perpendicular access to the beach and ocean rather than for dune construction. Though both dune construction and access easements relate to shore protection, the former directly enable and contribute to such protection, whereas the latter are merely incidental to it. In that sense, the Tomasi easements are arguably less justifiable than dune construction easements in the eminent domain context – and the defendants in Tomasi appeared to base their public purpose-driven arguments on precisely that premise. However, the court evidently did not find the above-described “direct vs. incidental” distinction meaningful and rejected the defendants’ argument, finding that pursuing federal funding for shoreline protection was a sufficient public purpose for eminent domain purposes.

Under the facts of this case, that is a logically defensible outcome, as the township’s acquisition of the access easements was a de-facto prerequisite for constructing dunes and otherwise protecting its shoreline area, per the Army Corps and NJDEP regulations. Accordingly, a possible implication for future cases is that the precise nature of the condemnation easement in question will not necessarily be dispositive, and the focus of a reviewing court’s inquiry instead will be whether such an easement is ultimately necessary to effectuate the contemplated shoreline protection program.

It is unclear if this premise informed the court’s decision in Tomasi. To the extent that it may have, it would be valuable for municipalities, property owners, and land use practitioners to know that the court employs a functional analysis in evaluating public use / purpose in eminent domain cases. Similarly, but conversely, it would be equally valuable for those stakeholders to know that the court did not equate access easements with dune construction easements but rather expanded the scope of eminent domain by permitting condemnation for easements which are merely incidental to shore protection.

Accordingly, the ambiguity in this space following the Tomasi decision is worth monitoring, both in that litigation as the Supreme Court considers whether to hear a (presently unfiled but) likely forthcoming appeal, and in future cases with similar or slightly different facts. Though its implications are presently limited, the Tomasi case clearly stands for the proposition that beach access condemnation easements to obtain federal funding for shore protection projects are permissible exercises of municipal eminent domain power.

 

© 2018 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved

Ninth Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict In Favor of Homeopathic Remedy for Flu-Like Symptoms

On November 8, 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict in a consumer class action deceptive advertising case in favor of Defendants Boiron Inc. and Boiron USA, Inc. (together, “Boiron”), the sellers of a homeopathic treatment for flu-like symptoms called Oscillococcinum (“Oscillo”).  Although the Ninth Circuit’s memorandum decision is marked “Not for Publication” and therefore is non-precedential under Ninth Circuit rules, the decision is still worth noting, as jury verdicts in class action false advertising cases are rare.

According to the appellate briefs, Oscillo’s active ingredient is a compound (extracted from the heart and liver of the Muscovy duck for those foodies in our readership) that is subjected to a homeopathic dilution process.  The diluted compound is then sprayed onto specially-manufactured granules.  Plaintiff argued that, due to the homeopathic dilution process, Oscillo was essentially “water sprayed on sugar,” which could not provide the relief from flu-like symptoms that Boiron advertised.  Plaintiff claimed that Boiron had therefore violated two California deceptive advertising statutes, the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”).

At the conclusion of a one-week trial in the Central District of California, the jury found in Boiron’s favor that its representations that Oscillo relieves flu-like symptoms were not false.  On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that the jury verdict did not constitute plain error because Boiron presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded that Oscillo actually works against flu-like symptoms.  This was a “battle of the experts” for the jury, the court wrote, that could not be relitigated on appeal.  And the jury appeared to have believed Boiron’s expert, clinical studies, and anecdotal evidence more than it believed the plaintiff’s expert, according to the court.

The Ninth Circuit further noted that in explicitly finding that Boiron’s claim that Oscillo treated flu-like symptoms was not false, the jury must have implicitly rejected Plaintiff’s argument that Oscillo was merely a sugar pill or water sprayed on sugar.  Nor did Plaintiff offer a theory of how Boiron’s representations could be false if the product did indeed treat flu symptoms.

The case is Christopher Lewert v. Boiron Inc., et al., No. 17-56607 in the Ninth Circuit.© 2018 Proskauer Rose LLP. To read all news published by the National Law Review click here.

Authored by: Lawrence I Weinstein and Tiffany Woo originally published at Proskauer Rose LLP Proskauer on Advertising Law Blog


Administrative Agency Deference Theme Reemerges with SCOTUS Considering Overturning Auer

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled that it remains concerned with the issue of administrative deference following its grant of certiorari last week to hear Kisor v. O’Rourke specific to the issue of whether the Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. Overruling one or both of these decisions could result in courts giving considerably less deference to agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations.

The ability of regulatory agencies to interpret their own regulations is a fundamental issue in many environmental disputes. Both Auer and Seminole Rock are frequently cited in environmental cases to support agency actions, as these decisions require courts to give agencies near-absolute deference, so long as their decisions are not “plainly erroneous or inconsistent” with other regulations.

In practice, agencies that promulgate vague regulations through notice-and-comment procedures required by the federal Administrative Procedure Act can later expand the ambit of these regulations through informal memoranda or regulatory interpretations. These less formal processes preempt the ability of the public and regulated community to meaningfully participate in the regulatory process.

Administrative deference is an ongoing theme that we have seen arise a number of times in the past few years. Indeed, the legal community had pondered whether the Supreme Court would review administrative deference issues in the Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service caseinvolving the dusky gopher frog that was decided a few weeks ago. Although the Supreme Court decided Weyerhauser without reference to issues of administrative deference, the Kisor case is a clear example that this is not going away.

However, Kisor actually arises in a context fairly atypical for administrative deference. The case involves a claim for PTSD-related retroactive disability benefits brought by a former Vietnam-War-era Marine who was denied retroactive disability benefits for PTSD he suffered as a result of his service in Vietnam. Kisor’s eligibility for such benefits hinged on whether the VA received “relevant official service department records” after initially denying his claim for benefits in 1982.

Kisor argued that material he submitted to the VA relating to his service in Vietnam constituted “relevant official service department records” and entitled him to retroactive benefits. The Board of Veterans Appeals (“Board”) disagreed, stating that, in Kisor’s case, “relevant” records were those relating to a diagnosis of PTSD (which was contested at the time of his initial denial). That Kisor served in the military was never in dispute.

The Court of Federal Claims upheld the Board’s interpretation of the meaning of “relevant.” In so holding, the court concluded that the term was ambiguous, and that the Board’s interpretation was entitled to deference under Auer, Seminole Rock, and their progeny, because it was neither “plainly erroneous or inconsistent” with the VA’s regulatory framework.

Kisor illustrates the breadth of power granted to agencies by Auer and Seminole Rock – the agency’s determination of whether “relevant” records were provided was quite possibly outcome-determinative for the involved claims.

The case is expected to be heard by the Court at some point in 2019. We will keep an eye out for further developments on Kisor and similar cases touching on administrative deference.

 

© 2018 Schiff Hardin LLP
Read more Litigation news at the National Law Review’s Litigation page.

Intentional Accidents: California Supreme Court Announces that General Commercial Liability Policies Apply to Negligent Hiring, Training, and Supervising Claims for Failing to Prevent Intentional Torts

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit observed that under California law, there was an unresolved question as to whether a commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy covers an employer-insured for negligently failing to prevent an employee’s intentional misconduct. In essence, it was unclear whether such an incident constituted an “occurrence” that only covers “accidents,” as an intentional act cannot, by definition, be an accident. Through a certified question from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court answered that such insurance policies indeed cover negligent hiring, training, and supervision claims because the crux of inquiry is the insured’s negligence—not the employee’s intent.

In Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, et al. v. Ledesma and Meyer Construction Company, Inc., No. 14-56120 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2018), the insured construction company was sued because its employee sexually abused a minor. Ledesma and Meyer Construction Company, Inc. (“L&M”) had been retained by a school district to oversee the construction of a middle school. During the course of construction, an employee sexually abused a 13-year-old student. The student sued L&M alleging claims of negligent hiring, training, and supervision of the employee that committed the intentional tort.

L&M’s CGL carrier filed a declaratory judgment action in federal district court, alleging that the claim against L&M was not covered by the insurance policy because it was premised on an intentional act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff insurer. It reasoned that, because the policy covered “bodily injury” that was “caused by an occurrence,” and because an “occurrence” is defined as an “accident,” the claims for negligent hiring, training, and supervision were too attenuated from the intentional injury-causing conduct to trigger coverage.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit certified the question of coverage to the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rephrased the question as follows: “When a third party sues an employer for the negligent hiring, training, and supervision of an employee who intentionally inured that third party, does that suit allege an ‘occurrence’ under the employer’s commercial general liability policy?” The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, reasoning that, “[b]ecause the term ‘accident’ includes negligence, a policy which defines ‘occurrence’ as an ‘accident’ provides ‘coverage for liability resulting from the insured’s negligent acts.’” (internal citations omitted). On the basis of this answer, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.

This decision solidifies what amounts to an expansion of insurance coverage in the Ninth Circuit over an employer-insured’s employee’s intentional acts, where the claims are premised on the employer-insured’s negligent hiring and supervision of the employee. Underwriters should take note and consider appropriate exclusions and/or pricing of premiums of insured risks in California and elsewhere in the Ninth Circuit.

 

©2011-2018 Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.