A small-plane pilot from San Francisco, who hid his HIV-positive status for years out of fear of losing his license, can sue the government for disclosing his condition during a fraud investigation, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.

A federal judge in San Francisco dismissed Stan Cooper's damage suit in 2008, despite finding that the Federal Aviation Administration and the Social Security Administration had violated Cooper's rights by sharing his confidential personal and medical records. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said Cooper hadn't been harmed financially and that federal privacy law doesn't authorize suits for emotional distress.

In reinstating the suit Monday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the law was intended to compensate people for harm they suffer when a federal agency intentionally discloses their confidential records.

That harm often consists of embarrassment rather than out-of-pocket losses, Judge Milan Smith said in the 3-0 ruling.

Cooper, 67, a pilot since 1964, gave up his license after he was diagnosed HIV-positive in 1985, when FAA rules still barred anyone with the AIDS virus from flying a plane. He said he reapplied in 1994 but did not disclose his medical condition.

Cooper's condition worsened in 1995 and he applied for Social Security benefits, with the assurance that his medical records would remain confidential.

He said he regained his health, discontinued his benefits and applied for a renewal of his license in 1998 after the FAA dropped its ban on HIV-positive pilots. He still did not disclose his condition, explaining later that the FAA required 10 years of medical records but didn't say how it would evaluate them.

The FAA revoked his license in 2005 after obtaining information from the Social Security Administration in the short-lived "Operation Safe Pilot," which examined records of 45,000 pilots, all in Northern California, to see if they had committed fraud in obtaining Social Security benefits or a pilot's license.

As litigators, cynics and viewers of A Civil Action know, how and where a lawsuit is brought can determine its outcome at least as often as the merits of the case. Perhaps the most potent civil procedure decision is the case's forum: state or federal court. Generally, corporate defendants prefer federal courts, and plaintiffs' attorneys prefer state courts. As a result "forum shopping" battles dominate the early stages of proceedings, as the sides fight over whether a corporation can be deemed a "citizen" of the state the plaintiffs come from; if both sides are from the same state, the case stays in that state's court.

So the big issue is where a corporation has citizenship. The Circuit Courts have interpreted the key statutory language -- citizenship exists where the "principal place of business" is -- in a few ways, but most assess the "total activity" of the corporation, including its purposes, type of activity, and legal site, and most of the others similarly look to the operations of the business as a whole. Only the 7th Circuit focused on the company's "nerve center", essentially meaning the place where the company is headquartered.

In Hertz Corp. v. Friend, our business-friendly Supreme Court unanimously swept away the case-by-case assessments of where businesses actually conduct their business and adopted the 7th Circuit's nerve center approach. Now corporations can insure federal diversity jurisdiction -- plaintiffs and defendants coming from different states -- whenever they most want it by (re)locating their headquarters.

Expect this decision to produce two dynamics. First, some corporations will relocate out of states where the courts are viewed as particularly plaintiff friendly, insuring claims against them will not be brought in those courts. Second, corporations will threaten to leave, if the state legislatures don't amend their laws to make corporate-friendly outcomes more likely if the case is heard in the state court.

The justices unanimously ruled for the state of Maryland in overturning a lower-court decision that had thrown out the confession to the police by a suspect in a child sexual abuse case.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the high court that an initial request for an attorney does not mean the police cannot question a suspect later if the person has been released from custody and decides to confess.

The Supreme Court generally has favored the police and limited the rights of suspects in recent years. On Tuesday, it ruled officers adequately warned a suspect of his legal rights when they told him he could speak to a lawyer before answering any questions.

The latest ruling involved Michael Shatzer, who had been imprisoned in Maryland for child sexual abuse in 2003 when police started investigating allegations he had sexually abused his 3-year-old son. Shatzer requested an attorney and the case went dormant.

Some 2 1/2 years later, the boy was old enough to offer new details. When a different police detective then questioned Shatzer about the case, he was advised of his rights and signed a form waiving them before confessing.

The Law Offices of Steven M. Simrin provides legal services in the areas of tax representation, probate (wills and trusts), and conservatorships.  We are dedicated to providing our clients with high-quality legal services along with the personalized attention that should be expected of a small law firm. Conveniently located near Jack London Square in Oakland, we serve clients from Oakland, Berkeley and the entire San Francisco Bay Area.

We provide the following legal services to our clients:

•Experienced and aggressive tax representation

      o  IRS (income tax, payroll tax, estate tax, excise tax)

      o  California Franchise Tax Board (income tax, use tax)

      o  California Board of Equalization (payroll tax, sales tax, excise tax, use tax, property tax)

      o  California Employment Development Department (payroll tax)

      o  Local tax authorities (property tax, sales tax, all other local taxes)

•Probate
•Trusts
•Conservatorships

For all of our clients, we offer more than 12 years experience as both an attorney and a certified public accountant.  We promise to always take the time to clearly explain to you what your options are.  We also promise to provide you with the most attentive and professional legal services structured to address your unique needs.

Law Offices of Steven M. Simrin
318 Harrison Street Suite 102
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel. (510) 444-4430

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied an appeal by Pacific Investment Management Co challenging class-action certification for a lawsuit alleging the world's largest bond fund manager tried to corner a market for U.S. Treasury note futures.

A U.S. appeals court in Chicago upheld a judge's ruling that certified as a class more than 1,000 investors who seek more than $600 million in damages.

Pimco, a Newport Beach, California-based unit of the German insurer Allianz SE appealed to the Supreme Court, but the justices turned down the appeal in a brief order without any comment.

The lawsuit accused Pimco of boosting its percentage stake in futures contracts on some 10-year Treasury notes to 42 percent from 12 percent over a two-week span in the spring of 2005. The relevant contracts traded on the Chicago Board of Trade.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, Pimco argued that class-action status should not have been granted because some plaintiffs did not lose money and the class suffered from serious conflicts of interest that precluded certification.

The Obama Administration requested that the U.S. Supreme Court let the government seek damages of around $300 billion from the tobacco industry through an appeal of the landmark 2006 federal racketeering case that was earlier rejected by the courts.

Last Friday, the U.S. government asked the Supreme Court to overturn parts of the racketeering case and is now seeking $280 billion in forfeited profits and $10 billion to fund campaigns to cut the level of smoking in the United States.

R.J. Reynolds, Inc. Lorillard Inc. and other major players in the industry simultaneously filed paperwork asking the court to overturn the racketeering conviction or return it to an appellate court for review.

While it could be at least nine months before the court decides where to take the case, investors don’t have to look too far back to see the consequences of the uncertainty. The 2006 case sent shares in the sector sharply lower, as investors feared steep fines.

The tobacco company may have lost the lawsuit in 2006, but it avoided crippling monetary damages. Judge Kessler’s move to consider requiring tobacco companies to give up some $280 billion in profits was overruled after the industry filed a pretrial motion with an appeals court.

Airgas Inc urged its shareholders on Monday to reject a $5.1 billion tender offer from larger rival Air Products & Chemicals Inc, arguing the offer substantially undervalues the industrial gas supplier.

The move was widely expected, and Airgas investors now have until April 9 to formally consider Air Products's $60-per-share cash offer.

However even if a majority of Airgas shareholders sell their shares, the Airgas board still has a "poison pill" in place to keep any one party from acquiring too large a stake.

Allentown, Pennsylvania-based Air Products took the bid hostile earlier this month by launching the tender after being privately rejected twice by Airgas's board.

If successful, Air Products would become the biggest industrial gas company in North America, allowing Air Products to gain substantial benefits from the economy's resurgence after the recession abates.