News

Case Summaries

Admiralty

[02/25] Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R. Co. v. Seaway Marine Transp.
In an admiralty action seeking recovery of repair costs and lost profits against a cargo ship after it struck a land-based coal-loading machine operated by plaintiff, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's grant of summary judgment as to liability is reversed as there is a genuine dispute of fact over plaintiff's comparative negligence; and 2) district court's rejection of plaintiff's lost-profits claim is affirmed as plaintiff did not adequately disclose the basis of its lost-profits claim.

[02/22] Cianbro Corp. v. George H. Dean, Inc.
In an in rem maritime lien action, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and an order issuing a declaratory judgment to the effect that plaintiffs' vessels were not subject to a maritime lien in favor of defendant is affirmed as defendant failed to make the factual showing that it provided necessaries to the vessels as is required by 46 U.S.C. section 31342(a).

[02/03] ProShipLine Inc. v. Aspen Infrastructures Ltd.
In an action to secure a maritime attachment, district court's order denying plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to post security in lieu of garnishment is affirmed where a district court lacks the legal capacity under the Admiralty Rules to order a party to post security in lieu of garnishment. However, the district court's order equitably vacating plaintiffs' Rule B writ and exonerating security posted for that writ is reversed where the district court abused its discretion by concluding that it was bound by res judicata to vacate the writ to conform with the Southern District of New York's decision to vacate the writ involved in a related action pending there.

More...

Banking Law

[03/09] Martinez v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.
In an action under Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), claiming that a mortgage lender charged plaintiffs an illegal underwriting fee, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the clear and unambiguous language of RESPA Section 8(b) did not reach the practice of "overcharging"; and 2) the UCL claims alleging "unfair" and "fraudulent" conduct were preempted by the National Bank Act, and the allegations of "illegal" conduct failed to state a claim.

[03/02] Ma v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
In an action against Merrill Lynch based on unauthorized transfers from plaintiff's investment account, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where New York U.C.C. Section 4-A-505, which imposes a one-year statute of repose on certain claims based on electronic funds transfers, bars plaintiffs' common law claims, which had longer limitations periods.

[02/26] Williams v. Fleming
In plaintiff's suit against a bank, the US, and and an FDIC associate examiner, claiming that the associate examiner's racially motivated bias against plaintiff and other African-Americans was the reason he stopped receiving loans from the bank, dismissal of all claims including the Bivens suit against the associate examiner is affirmed where, because the dismissal of plaintiff's suit against the US was on the merits, and not for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, his remaining Bivens suit was properly barred by section 2676 of the FTCA.

More...

Bankruptcy Law

[03/08] Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. US
In an action by a law firm seeking declaratory relief, arguing that plaintiff was not bound by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act's (BAPCPA) debt relief agency provisions and therefore could freely advise clients to incur additional debt and need not make the requisite disclosures in its advertisements, the Eighth Circuit's order rejecting the district court's conclusion that attorneys are not "debt relief agencies" under BAPCPA, upholding application of BAPCPA's disclosure requirements to attorneys, and finding BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) unconstitutional, is affirmed in part where: 1) attorneys who provided bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons were debt relief agencies under the BAPCPA; and 2) BAPCPA section 528's requirements were reasonably related to the government's interest in preventing consumer deception. However, the court of appeals' order is reversed in part where BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) prohibited a debt relief agency only from advising a debtor to incur more debt because the debtor was filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose.

[03/08] In Re: Ray
District court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's dismissal of two Chapter 11 proceedings was correct, but the decision is vacated, as the law firm lacked standing where there is no evidence that one of the law firm's former attorneys ever informed the bankruptcy court that it was appearing on behalf of the firm and the record is devoid of any mention of the firm by the attorney or any other party.

[02/15] In re: Barner
In debtor's appeal from the bankruptcy court's ruling finding that an automatic stay did not apply to a foreclosure sale of her home, the order is affirmed where: 1) 11 U.S.C. sections 362(d)(4) and (b)(20) did not prohibit enforcement of a 2004 order lifting the automatic stay as to debtor's residence; and 2) the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act did not modify or affect orders issued in cases filed before its effective date.

More...

Commercial Law

[03/09] Seltzer v. Barnes
Trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, arising from an underlying suit involving claims against a property management company and homeowners' association, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding plaintiff's two causes of action against defendant do not arise from speech or petitioning activity where his alleged conduct was the negotiation of a settlement in the prior case; and 2) because defendant may not be held liable for the alleged conduct under the litigation privilege, plaintiff has failed to show a probability of prevailing on her causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

[03/04] New York v. Golden Feather Smoke Shop, Inc.
In defendants' appeal from a preliminary injunction prohibiting the sale of untaxed cigarettes other than to members of the Unkechauge Nation for their personal use, the Second Circuit certifies the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: 1) Does N.Y. Tax Law section 471-e, either by itself or in combination with the provisions of section 471, impose a tax on cigarettes sold on Native American reservations when some or all of those cigarettes may be sold to persons other than members of the reservation's nation or tribe?; 2) If the answer to Question 1 is "no," does N.Y. Tax Law section 471 alone impose a tax on cigarettes sold on Native American reservations when some or all of those cigarettes may be sold to persons other than members of the reservation's nation or tribe?

[03/02] Pfizer v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' action against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law claiming that Pfizer marketed the mouthwash in a misleading manner by representing that the use of it can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis, defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn an order certifying the class action is granted as the ruling certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period is overbroad, and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), does not require a different disposition in this case.

More...

Consumer Protection

[03/09] Martinez v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.
In an action under Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), claiming that a mortgage lender charged plaintiffs an illegal underwriting fee, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the clear and unambiguous language of RESPA Section 8(b) did not reach the practice of "overcharging"; and 2) the UCL claims alleging "unfair" and "fraudulent" conduct were preempted by the National Bank Act, and the allegations of "illegal" conduct failed to state a claim.

[03/08] Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. US
In an action by a law firm seeking declaratory relief, arguing that plaintiff was not bound by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act's (BAPCPA) debt relief agency provisions and therefore could freely advise clients to incur additional debt and need not make the requisite disclosures in its advertisements, the Eighth Circuit's order rejecting the district court's conclusion that attorneys are not "debt relief agencies" under BAPCPA, upholding application of BAPCPA's disclosure requirements to attorneys, and finding BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) unconstitutional, is affirmed in part where: 1) attorneys who provided bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons were debt relief agencies under the BAPCPA; and 2) BAPCPA section 528's requirements were reasonably related to the government's interest in preventing consumer deception. However, the court of appeals' order is reversed in part where BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) prohibited a debt relief agency only from advising a debtor to incur more debt because the debtor was filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose.

[03/02] Pfizer v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' action against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law claiming that Pfizer marketed the mouthwash in a misleading manner by representing that the use of it can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis, defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn an order certifying the class action is granted as the ruling certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period is overbroad, and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), does not require a different disposition in this case.

More...

Contracts

[03/09] Seltzer v. Barnes
Trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, arising from an underlying suit involving claims against a property management company and homeowners' association, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding plaintiff's two causes of action against defendant do not arise from speech or petitioning activity where his alleged conduct was the negotiation of a settlement in the prior case; and 2) because defendant may not be held liable for the alleged conduct under the litigation privilege, plaintiff has failed to show a probability of prevailing on her causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

[03/09] San Francisco Hous. Auth. v. SEIU Local 790
Superior court's order vacating an arbitration award in its entirety on the ground that the the award is contrary to layoff provisions of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the parties is reversed as the remedy imposed by the arbitrator did not conflict with clear and explicit language of the MOU and it was rationally related to the breach identified.

[03/09] Hoopa Valley Tribe v. US
In an action against the United States for breach of fiduciary duty brought by the Hoopa Valley Tribe, arising from the distribution of the remainder in a Settlement Fund established under the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act only to the Yurok Tribe, summary judgment in favor of the government is vacated and remanded where: 1) the Hoopa Valley Tribe lacks standing because it cannot show an injury in fact; but 2) the matter should have been dismissed without prejudice

More...

Copyright

[03/02] Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick
In a class action alleging copyright infringement, a circuit court's ruling vacating a settlement class certification order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed where 17 U.S.C. section 411(a)'s registration requirement is a precondition to filing a copyright infringement claim, but a copyright holder's failure to comply with that requirement does not restrict a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction over infringement claims involving unregistered works.

[02/25] Maverick Recording Co. v. Harper
In a copyright infringement action based on unlawful file sharing, partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the uncontroverted evidence was more than sufficient to compel a finding that defendant had downloaded the files; and 2) defendant infringed plaintiffs' exclusive right to reproduce their copyrighted works by downloading the 37 audio files to her computer without authorization. Moreover, the partial denial of summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where lack of legal sophistication could not overcome a properly asserted 17 U.S.C. 402(d) limitation to the innocent infringer defense.

[02/25] Gaylord v. US
In plaintiff's suit against the United States for copyright infringement involving stamps issued by the US Postal Service that made use of plaintiff's copyrighted work, depicting part of the Korean War Veterans Memorial, judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) weighing the factors, the government's use of plaintiff's copyrighted work in the stamp was not a fair use; and 2) the Court of Federal Claims did not clearly err in determining that authorship of the art rested solely with plaintiff.

More...

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[03/09] In re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Secs. Litig.
In a securities class action alleging that defendants fraudulently accounted for a transaction, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to prove loss causation because their expert's testimony did not suffice to draw the requisite causal connection between the information in the article at issue and the fraud alleged in the complaint; and 2) the generalized investor reaction of concern causing a temporary share price decline was far too tenuously connected -- indeed, by a metaphoric thread -- to the transaction to support liability.

[03/03] Teachers' Ret. Sys. of La. v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP
In a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of AIG for breach of fiduciary duty against PricewaterhouseCoopers under New York law, the Delaware Supreme Court certifies the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: Would the doctrine of in pari delicto bar a derivative claim under New York law where a corporation sues its outside auditor for professional malpractice or negligence based on the auditor's failure to detect fraud committed by the corporation; and, the outside auditor did not knowingly participate in the corporation's fraud, but instead, failed to satisfy professional standards in its audits of the corporation's financial statements?

[02/26] D&J Tire Inc. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co.
In an action by a minority shareholder for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of defendant-executive's failure to disclose that defendant corporation was in talks to be acquired when the executive served as a mandatary on plaintiff's behalf to redeem his shares, summary judgment for defendant is vacated where: 1) because Louisiana's prescription statute did not bar plaintiff's rescission claim, the district court needs to determine whether plaintiff could prove that defendant's directors failed to disclose a material fact; 2) because defendant's directors were acting in their official capacity when redeeming plaintiff's stock, Connecticut courts would impose a fiduciary duty to disclose material facts in this situation; and 3) there was no reason, under Louisiana law, to apply another prescriptive period merely because defendant was also CFO of the corporation when the claim was based on his duties as mandatary.

More...

Government Contracts

[03/09] San Francisco Hous. Auth. v. SEIU Local 790
Superior court's order vacating an arbitration award in its entirety on the ground that the the award is contrary to layoff provisions of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the parties is reversed as the remedy imposed by the arbitrator did not conflict with clear and explicit language of the MOU and it was rationally related to the breach identified.

[03/09] Hoopa Valley Tribe v. US
In an action against the United States for breach of fiduciary duty brought by the Hoopa Valley Tribe, arising from the distribution of the remainder in a Settlement Fund established under the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act only to the Yurok Tribe, summary judgment in favor of the government is vacated and remanded where: 1) the Hoopa Valley Tribe lacks standing because it cannot show an injury in fact; but 2) the matter should have been dismissed without prejudice

[03/03] City of Laguna Beach v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n
In a city's action against an insurance company seeking reimbursement for incurring workers' compensation liability that exceeded its self-insured retention, grant of insurance company's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the addition of subdivision (c)(13) to Ins. Code section 1063.1 did not abrogate Denny's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 104 Cal.App.4th 1433 (2003); 2) the trial court properly invoked the Denny's rule when it granted summary judgment and concluded that the city cannot obtain reimbursement from defendant under section 1063.1(c)(13) as, although this provision renders the obligation of an insolvent excess workers' compensation insurer a "covered claim" that defendant must ordinarily reimburse, defendant need not reimburse a permissibly self-insured employer for benefits paid to an employee for cumulative injury if the employer's liability is based in part on a period of time when the employer was self-insured and chose not to buy excess insurance for the particular risk.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[03/09] Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.

[03/09] McGuan v. Endovascular Techs., Inc.
In plaintiffs' products liability action against the makers of a device for use by surgeons to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms, for injuries suffered after they were implanted with the device, grant of defendants' motion for a summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' fraud claims of FDA violations are preempted under Buckman; 2) the trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motions to amend their complaints; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants' motion to seal documents.

[03/09] Seltzer v. Barnes
Trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, arising from an underlying suit involving claims against a property management company and homeowners' association, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding plaintiff's two causes of action against defendant do not arise from speech or petitioning activity where his alleged conduct was the negotiation of a settlement in the prior case; and 2) because defendant may not be held liable for the alleged conduct under the litigation privilege, plaintiff has failed to show a probability of prevailing on her causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

More...

Insurance Law

[03/09] George's Inc. v. Allianz Global Risks US Ins. Co.
In an action against an insurer claiming that defendant failed to indemnify plaintiff for business expenses and personal property losses as required under the terms of its insurance policy, partial summary judgment for defendant on the personal property claim is affirmed, but a partial denial of summary judgment on the business expenses claim is reversed where the policy unambiguously excludes coverage for plaintiff's claimed losses.

[03/09] HealthEast Bethesda Hosp. v. United Commercial Travelers of Am.
In an action for breach of an insurance settlement contract, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) defendant was not an unsophisticated party because it had significant experience in handling and negotiating claims with healthcare providers; 2) because defendant bore the risk of mistake, the district court properly denied rescission based on unilateral mistake; and 3) the record of inaction by defendant strongly supported the denial of relief under both unilateral and mutual mistake.

[03/09] Seltzer v. Barnes
Trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, arising from an underlying suit involving claims against a property management company and homeowners' association, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding plaintiff's two causes of action against defendant do not arise from speech or petitioning activity where his alleged conduct was the negotiation of a settlement in the prior case; and 2) because defendant may not be held liable for the alleged conduct under the litigation privilege, plaintiff has failed to show a probability of prevailing on her causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

More...

Intellectual Property

[03/09] Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.
In an action for patent infringement relating to a design patent for a multi-function carpentry tool that combines a hammer with a stud climbing tool and a crowbar, a district court's finding of noninfringement is affirmed as the district court correctly construed the claim at issue and correctly determined that the patent was not infringed.

[03/08] Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiffs' suit alleging violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act in the importation and sale of certain lysine feed products made by the methods claimed in their patents relating to improved methods of producing L-lysine with genetically engineered E-Coli bacteria, the International Trade Commission's determination of no section 337 violation is affirmed where: 1) the asserted claims of plaintiffs' '698 patent and '160 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. section 112 for failure to comply with the best mode requirement; and 2) plaintiffs' argument that the Commissioner erred in finding '698 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct is waived.

[03/04] US v. Xu
Defendant's conviction for trafficking in counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs is vacated as to one count where a rational juror could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Zyprexa mark, allegedly misappropriated by defendant, was registered on the USPTO's principal register.

More...

Landlord Tenant

[03/03] Fed. Ins. Co. v. Commerce Ins. Co.
In plaintiff-insurance company's subrogation claim, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in concluding that the implied coinsured doctrine controlled the outcome in this case and precluded the plaintiff from pursuing a subrogation claim is affirmed as plaintiff has not met its burden of proving that the "Responsibility for Damages" provision of a Residence and Care Agreement (RCA) overcomes the presumption that the landlord's insurance is held for the mutual benefit of both parties.

[02/09] Chacon v. Litke
In a wrongful eviction action, judgment in favor of plaintiffs-tenants concluding that defendants violated the San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance is affirmed where: 1) defendants' interpretation of the Ordinance as conditioning a tenant's right to reoccupy the unit upon compliance with a 60-day notice is rejected; 2) substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the stipulation gave defendants temporary possession of the apartment for up to three months to make repairs and the plaintiffs retained their rights under the Ordinance to reoccupy the premises; 3) the litigation privilege did not apply to defendant's conduct in refusing to allow the plaintiffs to reoccupy the apartment; 4) trial court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings on the affirmative defenses; and 5) trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiffs' attorney's fees.

[02/01] Woodlands Park Mgmt., LLC. v. City of E. Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Bd.
Trial court's holding that the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance (RSO), adopted by the citizens of the City of East Palo Alto, permitted recovery of attorney fees by a landlord in successful litigation against the city is reversed as the intent of the electorate was that section 15.A.5 of the RSO authorize the recovery of attorney fees only in civil proceedings between landlords and tenants to enforce their respective rights under the RSO, and no other provision of the RSO provides for an award of fees against the city.

More...

Patent

[03/09] Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.
In an action for patent infringement relating to a design patent for a multi-function carpentry tool that combines a hammer with a stud climbing tool and a crowbar, a district court's finding of noninfringement is affirmed as the district court correctly construed the claim at issue and correctly determined that the patent was not infringed.

[03/08] Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiffs' suit alleging violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act in the importation and sale of certain lysine feed products made by the methods claimed in their patents relating to improved methods of producing L-lysine with genetically engineered E-Coli bacteria, the International Trade Commission's determination of no section 337 violation is affirmed where: 1) the asserted claims of plaintiffs' '698 patent and '160 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. section 112 for failure to comply with the best mode requirement; and 2) plaintiffs' argument that the Commissioner erred in finding '698 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct is waived.

[03/04] Tivo Inc. v. Echostar Corp.
In a patent infringement action against EchoStar, relating to the software component of plaintiff's patent that allows television users to simultaneously record and play broadcasts using what is commonly known as a digital video recorder (DVR), district court's decision finding defendants in contempt of a permanent injunction is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decision to hold contempt proceedings; 2) there was clear and convincing evidence before the district court to find that both types of EchoStar receivers continue to infringe and that it was not an abuse of discretion for the ocurt to find EchoStar in contempt of the infringement provision; and 3) given defendant's refusal to disable the DVR functionality in its existing devices and the fact that its original attempts to design around TiVo's patent were wholly unsuccessful, the district court had ample justification for its determination that court pre-approval of any new design-around effort was necessary to prevent future infringing activity.

More...

Probate Trusts

[02/25] Conservatorship of John L.
In a petition to establish a conservatorship of a person pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed where: 1) the superior court did not violate the LPS Act when it excused the individual's production and proceeded without him in attendance at a hearing to establish a conservatorship of his person; and 2) the superior court did not violate his due process rights.

[02/25] Donahue v. Donahue
Trial court's order, charging a trust with some $5 million in past and ongoing attorney fees incurred on behalf of a former trustee in defending against the beneficiary's allegations of self-dealing and conflict of interest is reversed as it cannot be determined from the trial court's order whether the fee awards are consistent with applicable legal principles. Long-established principles of trust law impose a double-barreled reasonableness requirement where: 1) the fee award must be reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation; and 2) it also must be reasonable and appropriate for the benefit of the trust.

[02/11] Estate of Tolman
Denial of a granddaughter's petition to determine persons entitled to distribution from her grandmother's estate is affirmed as the exclusion of unmentioned heirs or relatives from the will's dispositions, or an intent to disinherit those who contest those dispositions, does not sufficiently express or manifest an intent to arrest the operation of the anti-lapse law following a legatee's death.

More...

Securities Law

[03/09] In re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Secs. Litig.
In a securities class action alleging that defendants fraudulently accounted for a transaction, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to prove loss causation because their expert's testimony did not suffice to draw the requisite causal connection between the information in the article at issue and the fraud alleged in the complaint; and 2) the generalized investor reaction of concern causing a temporary share price decline was far too tenuously connected -- indeed, by a metaphoric thread -- to the transaction to support liability.

[03/02] Ma v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
In an action against Merrill Lynch based on unauthorized transfers from plaintiff's investment account, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where New York U.C.C. Section 4-A-505, which imposes a one-year statute of repose on certain claims based on electronic funds transfers, bars plaintiffs' common law claims, which had longer limitations periods.

[02/26] D&J Tire Inc. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co.
In an action by a minority shareholder for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of defendant-executive's failure to disclose that defendant corporation was in talks to be acquired when the executive served as a mandatary on plaintiff's behalf to redeem his shares, summary judgment for defendant is vacated where: 1) because Louisiana's prescription statute did not bar plaintiff's rescission claim, the district court needs to determine whether plaintiff could prove that defendant's directors failed to disclose a material fact; 2) because defendant's directors were acting in their official capacity when redeeming plaintiff's stock, Connecticut courts would impose a fiduciary duty to disclose material facts in this situation; and 3) there was no reason, under Louisiana law, to apply another prescriptive period merely because defendant was also CFO of the corporation when the claim was based on his duties as mandatary.

More...

Sports Law

[03/01] Media Techs. Licensing, LLC. v. Upper Deck Co.
In a patent infringement suit involving patents related to memorabilia cards, district court's conclusion that the patents are invalid for obviousness is affirmed where: 1) defendants have met the burden of showing that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to attach a sports-related item instead of those items attached in the prior art references; and 2) secondary objective evidence also fails to establish non-obviousness.

[02/12] Galveston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Jaco
In plaintiff's action against a school district under the Texas Whistleblower Act, claiming that he was demoted from his position as a director of athletics and extracurricular activities for reporting a student's violations of the University Interscholastic League's (UIL) eligibility rules to officials, trial court's denial of defendant's motion for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is reversed and remanded as the elements of Tex. Gov Code section 554.002(a) can be considered to determine both jurisdiction and liability, and thus, whether the reporting of a violation of UIL rules and regulations to the UIL is a good-faith report of a violation of law to an appropriate law-enforcement authority is a jurisdictional question.

[02/08] Mansourian v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and Title IX action against a university arising after the university required women on the co-ed wrestling team to compete against men under men's rules, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) plaintiffs were not required to give the university notice of, and an opportunity to rectify, the specific violation to make out a Title IX claim; 2) the record did not contain undisputed facts showing a history and continuing practice of program expansion that was responsive to women's interests; and 3) as plaintiffs were students and therefore subject to the policy that allegedly discriminated on the basis of sex at the time they filed their complaint, their section 1983 claim was not time-barred.

More...

Trade Secrets

[02/12] Ansys, Inc. v. Computational Dynamics N. Am., Ltd.
In plaintiff's suit against its former employee and his new employer (a competitor) claiming breach of noncompetition and confidentiality clauses in the employee's employment contract, interference with contractual relations, misappropriation of trade secrets, and unfair trade practices, denial of plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction to enforce the provisions of a one-year noncompetition clause in the employment agreement is affirmed as the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that plaintiff has failed to make a showing of likelihood of success on the breach of contract claim, or a likelihood of irreparable injury.

[12/29] Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiff's action under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act claiming that the defendants misappropriated certain trade secrets belonging to plaintiff, trial court's dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had forfeited its standing to maintain an action for misappropriation when it had gone through bankruptcy proceedings shortly after filing the complaint is reversed where: 1) a current ownership requirement is not supported by general principles of property or tort law; 2) existing authority imposes no "current ownership requirement" on trade secret plaintiffs; 3) adoption of a current ownership requirement in trade secrets cases is not warranted by analogy to trademark, patent, or copyright law; and 4) no policy concern preponderates in favor of current ownership requirement.

[12/03] Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp.
In a patent infringement action involving patents related to rapid-hardening, high-strength cement, summary judgments finding noninfringement and that no trade secret was violated is affirmed in part, dismissed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) district court's finding of noninfringement is vacated and remanded as the court erred in claim construction of the the term "soluble CaSo4 anhydride"; 2) district court's grant of summary judgment of laches is reversed and remanded relating to one patent as it was not clear that plaintiff knew or should have known of defendant's alleged infringement before it conducted discovery on another patent in 2002; 3) district court erred in granting summary judgment finding that one patent claim was indefinite; 4) plaintiffs' appeal with respect to one patent is dismissed as it waived the argument of its invalidity; 5) denial of plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint is affirmed; 6) summary judgment finding no trade secret violations is affirmed; 7) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to disqualify defendants' attorneys; and 8) the district court's decision on exceptional case status is vacated for further proceedings on remand.

More...

Trademark

[03/04] US v. Xu
Defendant's conviction for trafficking in counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs is vacated as to one count where a rational juror could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Zyprexa mark, allegedly misappropriated by defendant, was registered on the USPTO's principal register.

[03/03] In re: Whirlpool Corp.
In a trademark infringement suit brought by LG Electronics against Whirlpool, relating to a dryer that uses steam to reduce wrinkles, Whirlpool's petition for a writ of mandate challenging the district court's order to disclose communications between its attorneys and its outside advertising agencies is denied as it failed to show both that the order will be effectively unreviewable if Whirlpool is forced to wait until the end of the case and also that the order is patently erroneous or usurpative in character. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), that rulings that allegedly infringe upon the attorney-client privilege are not appealable as collateral orders, and as such, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

[01/05] Great Clips, Inc. v. Hair Cuttery of Greater Boston, LLC
In a trademark dispute between companies in the hair care industry involving a settlement agreement entered into nineteen years ago in which their predecessors stipulated to the withdrawal of the parties' respective claims and to not object further to the registration of the others' trademark, district court's grant of plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment is affirmed as, notwithstanding possible arguments on each side about potential confusion between their respective phrases, "Great Cuts" and "Great Clips", no evidence is offered that the parties sought only to allow each to register its mark but to reserve for future litigation the practical consequences of registration.

More...