Westlaw Journals weekly round-up

January 23, 2013

Westlaw Journals Weekly RoundupThe new Westlaw Journals blog brings you litigation headlines in over 30 substantive areas of law.  Here are some highlights from the past week:

N.Y. judge OKs jurisdiction over S.C. asbestos company: A New York trial judge has rejected a South Carolina company’s effort to avoid jurisdiction after the plaintiff cited archived pages from the corporation’s website to establish in-state connections.  The judge apparently relied on information found on the website to establish facts about the company’s history, although the opinion did not mention the archived website directly.  Plaintiff’s attorney Kush Shukla of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer said he is unaware of any other case in which a court relied upon such facts to make a jurisdictional ruling.  (Asbestos)

Southwest Airlines leased two Boeing 737s in 1994 from nonparty General Electric Capital Corp., which was later subsumed into Wells Fargo.

Airline takes plane lease dispute with bank to federal court: Southwest Airlines has sued Wells Fargo Bank Northwest for breach of contract for allegedly refusing to accept the return of two airplanes under leases held by the bank.  Southwest filed a declaratory judgment complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asserting that it was within its rights under the lease agreements to replace engines on both airplanes.  Wells Fargo is insisting that the engines are “noncompliant” with lease terms and wants the carrier to pay a $3.3 million penalty fee, according to the suit.  (Bank & Lender Liability)

D.C. Circuit denies rehearing in greenhouse gas case: The D.C. Circuit, by a vote of 6-2, has refused to rehear a case brought by industry groups challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed greenhouse gas regulations for vehicles, coal-burning power plants and other industrial facilities.  The majority upheld a June 26 panel opinion, by Chief Judge David Sentelle and Judges David Tatel and Judith Rogers, that held that the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401, to regulate carbon dioxide was “unambiguously correct.” (Environmental)