Cordoza v. Pacific States Steel Corporation

320 F.3d 989 (2003)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Cordoza v. Pacific States Steel Corporation

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
320 F.3d 989 (2003)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD

Facts

Pacific States Steel Corporation (PSSC) (defendant) shut down in 1978, leaving a contaminated plant and a bankrupt medical plan for retired steelworkers and their dependents. Eldon Cordoza and other pensioners (plaintiffs) brought a class action in California federal court under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. After the proceedings, presiding judge Patel ordered PSSC to continue paying for the pensioners’ medical benefits, but PSSC had few assets. Judge Patel and the parties decided to clean up and develop the toxic land where the plant stood to fund the medical plan. The first special master Judge Patel appointed tried unsuccessfully to accomplish that task for six years. Judge Patel replaced him with attorney Bruce Train and Train’s two associates, Theodore Sorenson and Hans Lemke (collectively, Train). Train formed two companies to develop the plant site and use the profits to pay the medical benefits. Train was compensated hourly but also received an interest in the developed land. Train reached agreements with the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Union City (RDA) for funding to develop a small part of the plant site and persuaded another company to perform some clean-up work. However, after six years negotiations foundered, primarily because Train rejected valid offers from the RDA, insisting on more compensation. Judge Patel opened an investigation and limited Train’s authority. After an audit, RDA requested setting Train’s final compensation at $3 million and ordering Train to disgorge the excess. In a detailed 40-page order, Judge Patel catalogued abundant evidence supporting her orders limiting and ultimately terminating Train’s authority as special master, set Train’s final compensation at $1.2 million for each of the three attorneys, and ordered Bruce Train personally to disgorge over $100,000 and pay almost $25,000 in attorney fees. Train filed a notice of appeal, which the court treated as a petition for writ of mandamus.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (McKeown, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership