Rule v. Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc., No. 09-1364, concerned a plaintiff's putative class action suit against Weyth Corporation and its subsidiary, alleging that defendants had sold a heartworm medication to her dog without disclosing safety concerns revealed in initial testing and in subsequent use. In affirming district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to sate a claim, the court held that recovery generally is not available under the warranty of merchantability where the defect that made the product unfit caused no injury to the claimant and the threat is now gone and nothing now possessed by the claimant has been lessened in value. The court rejected plaintiff's remaining claim as she has suffered no economic injuries under 93A section 4.
US v. Roa-Medina, No. 08-2490, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's motion to modify his sentence of 72-months for crack and other drug related offenses. In affirming the sentence, the court held that the defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment that was "based on a sentencing range" of 120 months to 135 months, and his reduced sentence represented a 40% deviation from the bottom of that range, and defendant's sentencing range has not been "lowered" within the meaning of section 3582(c)(2).
Rosario v. Dep't of the Army, No. 08-2168, concerned a plaintiff's suit against the Department of the Army and others, claiming that sexual harassment by her co-worker at an Army medical clinic subjected her to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. In vacating and remanding the district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court held that a reasonable jury could find that plaintiff met her burden to show conduct that created a hostile work environment within the meaning of Title VII.