Legal Headlines

Case Summaries

Attorney's Fees

[05/07] Wrenn v. Astrue
A district court's determination that the combined attorney's fees for representation before the Social Security Administration (SSA) and on appeal to a district court cannot exceed 25% of past-due benefits is reversed and remanded where the Commissioner and the court have the authority to independently determine the appropriate attorney's fees, and the 25% limitation on fees for court representation is not itself limited by the amount of fees awarded by the Commissioner.

[05/07] Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.510, subdivision (c), and the court's inherent authority to control its ministerial officers and other persons connected with a judicial proceeding in furtherance of justice, authorize the court to require a deposition reporter to provide a copy of a deposition transcript to a non-noticing party in a pending action for a reasonable fee which, in the absence of an agreement between the interested parties, may be set by the court upon a proper evidentiary showing.

[05/06] People v. Bhakta
In an action involving claims of prostitution nuisance at a motel, a judgment permanently enjoining defendants from facilitating or encouraging prostitution, or providing a place where prostitution can occur on the premises pursuant to the "Red Light Abatement Law" and unfair competition law, as well as an award of fees and costs to the government, are affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err in proceeding with a bench trial, as defendants were not entitled to a jury trial; and 2) the court properly exercised its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs.

[05/05] Shirt v. Hazeltine
An order denying plaintiffs' motion for expert witness fees under section 6 of the "Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006" ("VRARA") is affirmed where applying section 6 of VRARA would have retroactive effect, and thus in accordance with Supreme Court precedent, is presumed to not govern.

[05/05] Profit Concepts Mgmt., Inc. v. Griffith
In a suit brought by a California-based company against a former employee-Oklahoma resident for breach of contract, wherein the employment contract at issue provided that in any litigation involving the contract, the prevailing party would be entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs, judgment for former employee awarding costs including attorney's fees is affirmed where: 1) because the trial court granted the employee's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction, the employee was the party prevailing on the contract under Civil Code section 1717; and 2) thus, he was entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees as costs.

[05/05] Reeves v. Astrue
An award of attorney's fees granted under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. section 2412(d)(1)(A) belongs to the "prevailing party", which is the party and not the party's attorney.

[05/02] Williams v. City of Carl Junction
An award of attorneys' fees to defendants in a civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. section 1988 is reversed where plaintiff's case presented colorable arguments which were not frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation.

[04/29] Ramirez v. Murdick
In an action wherein plaintiff filed a Huffman claim seeking liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs for the late payment of worker's compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Superior Court did not err in its interpretation and application of Workers' Compensation Act, 19 Del. C. sections 2357 and 2362(c); and 2) although the Superior Court erred in converting employer's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless.

More...

Banking Law

[05/07] Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.

[05/07] Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc.
In a patent infringement action involving automated financial account processing systems, summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendants is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the construction of "remote interface" only encompasses publicly-accessible computer equipment and not consumer owned personal computers; 2) thus, defendant-Federated was entitled to summary judgment; 3) defendants-TD Ameritrade and HSBC were entitled to summary judgment only with respect to systems that are accessed solely via consumer-owned personal computers; but 4) further proceedings were required as to those defendants based on certain modified claim constructions.

[05/01] Arnold, Matheny & Eagan, P.A. v. First Am. Holdings, Inc.
In a case involving the interpretation of Florida's garnishment statute and the obligations it imposes on third parties, including attorneys, who are served with writs of garnishment, the Supreme Court of Florida finds that Florida law imposes on both bank and non-bank garnishees the duty to retain funds held by the garnishee, even after a check on those funds has been drawn by the garnishee and delivered to the payee.

[04/30] Stephenson v. El-Batrawi
In a securities-related action wherein default judgment was entered against defendant in the amount of $67.5 million for damages, denial of defendant's motion to set aside the default judgment is affirmed where: 1) defendant was properly served, evaded service of process, and thus was not blameless for his failure to timely appear; 2) defendant failed to establish the existence of a meritorious defense; and 3) reopening the matter would be prejudicial to the parties in light of the amount of time that had lapsed. However, because there was no adequate record to evaluate the district court's damage determinations, matter is remanded for the district court to make findings regarding the evidentiary support and any necessary calculation for any damage award it may enter.

[04/29] Patel v. Mukasey
Petition for review of a decision finding that petitioner, a citizen of India, was removable for having committed an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) is denied where plaintiff's conviction for misprision of a felony was an offense that: 1) necessarily entailed fraud or deceit; and 2) involved a loss to the victim exceeding $10,000.

[04/25] Ross v. Bank of America, N.A.
In an appeal involving whether mandatory arbitration clauses found in credit card contracts issued by defendants, assuming they were products of illegal collusion among credit providers, give rise to Article III standing, dismissal of plaintiffs-cardholders' antitrust suit is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court erroneously held that plaintiff-cardholders failed to allege an "injury in fact" sufficient to confer Article III standing; and 2) plaintiffs' claims were ripe for adjudication.

[04/24] Rodriguez v. Bank of the West
In a case wherein a lawyer filed negligence claims against several banks after the lawyer's office manager opened bank accounts in the lawyer's name with a forged signature, deposited client funds, and stole from those accounts, dismissal of lawyer's action is affirmed where the lawyer was not deemed a "customer" to which the banks owed a duty of care.

[04/23] US v. Rittweger
Conviction of multiple defendants for conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud, and commercial bribery, using facilities of interstate commerce to carry on and facilitate commercial bribery, wire fraud, and securities fraud is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court erred by denying defendants' motion to sever under Fed. Crim. Pro. Rule 8(b) and Rule 14; and 2) the government violated Brady, when it failed to produce arguably exculpatory evidence with respect to a charged co-conspirator until the week of trial.

More...

Civil Procedure

[05/08] Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.
In an action against a bank involving allegations that plaintiffs' were wrongfully evicted and their property improperly foreclosed upon, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' section 1983 claims constituted a de facto appeal of a state court decision and were therefore barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and 2) plaintiffs' collateral attack on a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction was unavailing, and thus, defendant-bank did not violate 11 U.S.C. section 362 in foreclosing on plaintiffs' property.

[05/08] Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
In proceedings arising after the NLRB brought a complaint alleging that, by attempting to enforce certain provisions of a collective bargaining agreement with DHL Airways, petitioner-pilots' association had committed unfair labor practices, the association's petition for review of a finding that its conduct violated the National Labor Relations Act is granted where, under the analysis of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, the NLRB did not have jurisdiction over this Railway Labor Act dispute.

[05/08] Dedji v. Mukasey
An IJ has broad discretion, in the management of his docket, to enforce deadlines established by local rules, and to deviate from the local rules where: 1) petitioner has demonstrated good cause for the delay; and 2) substantial prejudice would likely result from the enforcement of the deadline. Further, abuse of discretion is the proper standard to apply in reviewing an IJ's decision to establish and enforce filing deadlines for submission of documents.

[05/08] Thompson v. Choinski
Dismissal of a habeas petition is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) insofar as the petition challenged the conviction, it was a "second or successive motion" which did not satisfy the requirements for such a motion under 28 U.S.C. section 2255; 2) claims protesting conditions of confinement imposed by a state facility became moot when petitioner was transferred back to a federal prison; but 3) the district court erroneously dismissed claims protesting the federally imposed conditions of confinement based on petitioner's failure to exhaust state remedies and for other perceived defects in pleading.

[05/07] Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.510, subdivision (c), and the court's inherent authority to control its ministerial officers and other persons connected with a judicial proceeding in furtherance of justice, authorize the court to require a deposition reporter to provide a copy of a deposition transcript to a non-noticing party in a pending action for a reasonable fee which, in the absence of an agreement between the interested parties, may be set by the court upon a proper evidentiary showing.

[05/07] B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc.
In an antitrust case involving the legality of an agreement which established an exclusive network of preferred providers to supply types of medical equipment to enrollees in certain health-benefits plans offered to Chrysler, Ford, and state employees and retirees, a judgment and sanctions against plaintiff whose application to the network was rejected are affirmed, and appellate sanctions imposed, where: 1) plaintiff's antitrust claims lacked any conceivable merit; 2) a challenge to a discovery order failed; and 3) sanctions imposed below were not an abuse of discretion, and further, appellate sanctions were warranted.

[05/06] People v. Bhakta
In an action involving claims of prostitution nuisance at a motel, a judgment permanently enjoining defendants from facilitating or encouraging prostitution, or providing a place where prostitution can occur on the premises pursuant to the "Red Light Abatement Law" and unfair competition law, as well as an award of fees and costs to the government, are affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err in proceeding with a bench trial, as defendants were not entitled to a jury trial; and 2) the court properly exercised its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs.

[04/29] Ramirez v. Murdick
In an action wherein plaintiff filed a Huffman claim seeking liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs for the late payment of worker's compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Superior Court did not err in its interpretation and application of Workers' Compensation Act, 19 Del. C. sections 2357 and 2362(c); and 2) although the Superior Court erred in converting employer's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless.

More...

Commercial Law

[05/08] Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)

[05/07] Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.

[05/07] B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc.
In an antitrust case involving the legality of an agreement which established an exclusive network of preferred providers to supply types of medical equipment to enrollees in certain health-benefits plans offered to Chrysler, Ford, and state employees and retirees, a judgment and sanctions against plaintiff whose application to the network was rejected are affirmed, and appellate sanctions imposed, where: 1) plaintiff's antitrust claims lacked any conceivable merit; 2) a challenge to a discovery order failed; and 3) sanctions imposed below were not an abuse of discretion, and further, appellate sanctions were warranted.

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

[04/30] Delaware Valley Surgical Supply Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson
In an interlocutory appeal stemming from a disagreement between two different groups of plaintiffs about who has standing as a "direct purchaser" to bring a claim against Johnson & Johnson and subsidiaries under federal antitrust laws, a judgment ruling against plaintiff-hospital is affirmed as it lacked standing to pursue an antitrust claim under a direct purchaser theory.

[04/30] Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC
In a case primarily addressing whether a realtor who represented the lessee in a complex commercial lease transaction had a duty to inform the lessor, after the lease was signed but before the lessee took possession, that the lessee's ability to perform the conditions of the lease was jeopardized by its deteriorating financial condition, the judgment below is affirmed primarily as the trial court did not err: 1) in determining that the lessor failed to plead facts sufficient to establish any duty on the realtor's part; nor 2) in refusing to award attorney fees to the lessor based upon its defeat of the realtor's claims for unpaid commissions pursuant to Civil Code section 1717.

[04/30] Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
In a case applying the accrual and statute of limitations provisions of the Massachusetts U.C.C. to breach of warranty claims brought against an engine manufacturer, dismissal of plaintiff's warranty and Massachusetts Gen. Laws chapter 93A claims as time-barred, as well as summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's negligence claims, are affirmed where: 1) the breach of warranty claim, accruing on the date of delivery of goods, was filed after the expiration of the limitations period, and plaintiff's equitable estoppel arguments were unavailing; and 2) plaintiff made no compelling argument and cited no specific facts which would invalidate the exculpatory language contained in a negligence exclusion clause.

[04/30] City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
In an action involving the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which provides that any "qualified civil liability action that is pending on October 26, 2005, shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending", the circuit court finds that: 1) a claim by the city of New York, predicated on New York Penal Law section 240.45, did not fall within an exception to the claim restricting provisions of the Act; and 2) the PLCAA was a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, and the PLCAA did not violate the separation of powers doctrine or otherwise offend the Constitution in any manner alleged by the city.

More...

Construction

[05/08] Charles A. Pratt Constr. Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Comm'n
In an action wherein plaintiff attempted to set aside a decision by the California Coastal Commission denying a coastal development permit under the California Coastal Act, and sought for damages on regulatory taking grounds, judgment denying a petition for writ of administrative or ordinary mandate and dismissing plaintiff's taking claim as unripe is affirmed where: 1) the agency had the ultimate authority to ensure that coastal development conformed to the policies embodied in the state's Coastal Act; 2) the agency's reasons for denying the permit were well supported by the record; and 3) the agency only issued one formal decision which neither foreclosed the question of what development will be allowed, nor precluded plaintiff from submitting other development plans.

[05/08] Guardian Pipeline, LLC v. 950.80 Acres of Land
In a condemnation action under 15 U.S.C. section 717f(h) involving the construction of a natural-gas pipeline, the ruling below is affirmed over appellants'-owners challenge where: 1) 28 U.S.C. section 455 does not apply to commissioners; 2) assuming that the section would apply, the commissioner would not be disqualified since disqualification is case specific; 3) the court would not consider an allegation of impropriety under section 455(a) since it was not raised until after the commission had made a decision; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in the use of expert testimony since the commission's report addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the witnesses.

[05/07] In Re: Barroso-Herrans
A bankruptcy court's approval of a settlement presented by the bankruptcy trustee is affirmed where the trustee's reading of certain of debtors' claimed exemptions, as limited to a $4,000 share of proceeds from each of two underlying lawsuits, was objectively reasonable.

[05/05] Perry Homes v. Cull
In an action arising after plaintiffs' home suffered serious structural and drainage problems, an arbitration award in favor of plaintiffs is vacated and remanded where: 1) the issue of waiver of arbitration by litigation conduct is an issue to be decided by courts; 2) waiver must be decided on a case-by-case basis, courts should look to the totality of the circumstances, and such waiver requires a showing of prejudice; and 3) plaintiffs waived arbitration and defendants were prejudiced, in this case.

[05/02] Islander E. Pipeline Co., LLC v. McCarthy
Petition for review of a decision by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) denying a "water quality certification" for plaintiff to build a natural gas pipeline across the Long Island Sound is denied where: 1) record evidence supported the CTDEP's finding that plaintiff's proffered techniques for installing the proposed pipeline would violate state water quality standards; and 2) based on the record, the CTDEP's denial of certification was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law. (Substituted opinion)

[05/01] Worth Constr. Co., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co.
In a coverage dispute brought by a general contractor arising from injuries sustained by a worker on a staircase installed by a subcontractor, a ruling finding that subcontractor's insurer had a duty of defense and indemnity is reversed where: 1) the victim's injury stemmed from slipping on fireproofing material applied by an entirely separate company unaffiliated with insured-subcontractor; and 2) because the general contractor admitted that its claims of negligence against subcontractor were without factual merit, it conceded that the staircase was merely the situs of the accident, and thus foreclosed arguments of any connection between the victim's accident and the risk for which the coverage was intended.

[04/28] Great W. Contractors, Inc. v. WSS Indus. Constr., Inc.
In an action wherein a subcontractor sued a general contractor to recover work performed under a construction service agreement, denial of general contractor's motion for non-suit is reversed and remanded where: 1) the subcontractor was unlicensed during a period in which it performed services that could only be performed by a licensed contractor; and 2) the subcontractor was unable to meet the threshold requirement to invoke the statutory exception of substantial compliance with the Construction Servicing Licensing Law, as it was never licensed as a state contractor prior to beginning performance.

[04/23] State Bldg. and Constr. Trades Council of California v. Duncan
Tax credits provided by the state to facilitate construction of low-income housing come within the definition of Labor Code section 1720, which requires employers engaged on public works projects to pay the prevailing wage to their workers if the project is "paid for in whole or in part out of public funds".

More...

Contracts

[05/08] Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
In proceedings arising after the NLRB brought a complaint alleging that, by attempting to enforce certain provisions of a collective bargaining agreement with DHL Airways, petitioner-pilots' association had committed unfair labor practices, the association's petition for review of a finding that its conduct violated the National Labor Relations Act is granted where, under the analysis of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, the NLRB did not have jurisdiction over this Railway Labor Act dispute.

[05/08] Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)

[05/08] In Re: Peanut Crop Ins. Litig.
In an action against the government over the indemnification of losses covered by a privately issued and governmentally backed insurance policy, summary judgment for farmers on breach of contract claims is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) the policy did not create any contractual obligation for insurers to indemnify the farmers for lost peanuts in 2002 at a 31 cent quota rate since it was contingent on 2002 farm poundage quota allocations being made to individual farmers, and such allocations were never made; 2) the prevention doctrine was misapplied since the indemnification of the farmers did not depend on the allocation of quotas by the government; and 3) there was no detrimental reliance since government programs are subject to congressional modification, and the farmers had been notified that there would be revisions to the peanut quota program.

[05/07] Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.

[05/07] In Re: Barroso-Herrans
A bankruptcy court's approval of a settlement presented by the bankruptcy trustee is affirmed where the trustee's reading of certain of debtors' claimed exemptions, as limited to a $4,000 share of proceeds from each of two underlying lawsuits, was objectively reasonable.

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

[05/06] S. Nuclear Operating Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
In a hearing over modifications to health-care and life-insurance benefits made without negotiating with the employees' unions, petition for review is granted in part and the cross-application to enforce the order is granted in part where: 1) Other Post-Retirement Benefits (OPRB's) are a mandatory bargaining subject; 2) the unions did not waive their bargaining rights by not negotiating over the reservation-of-rights clauses; and 3) some of petitioners were allowed by contract to modify health-care OPRBs but none of them were allowed to unilaterally modify the life-insurance OPRBs.

[05/05] Profit Concepts Mgmt., Inc. v. Griffith
In a suit brought by a California-based company against a former employee-Oklahoma resident for breach of contract, wherein the employment contract at issue provided that in any litigation involving the contract, the prevailing party would be entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs, judgment for former employee awarding costs including attorney's fees is affirmed where: 1) because the trial court granted the employee's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction, the employee was the party prevailing on the contract under Civil Code section 1717; and 2) thus, he was entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees as costs.

More...

Copyright

[05/06] U.S. v. Armstead
Convictions for felony willful copyright infringement for private financial gain are affirmed over allegations that the government failed to produce sufficient evidence that DVDs sold had an aggregate value of more than $2,500 in "retail value" as used in section 2319(b)(1).

[04/28] Litecubes, LLC v. N. Light Prods., Inc.
In a patent and copyright infringement case, denial of a motion to dismiss by the defendant-appellant for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the denial of a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is affirmed where: 1) the district court need not consider whether the alleged patent infringement occurred in the U.S. in order to determine subject matter jurisdiction; 2) the extraterritorial limits of the Copyright Act apply to the elements of the claim, and not to the question of subject matter jurisdiction; 3) the court predicts that Eighth Circuit law would find that the term "sale" should be interpreted consistently in copyright and patent law; and 4) there was sufficient evidence for the jury verdict and the denial of a JMOL.

[04/03] ConnectU, LLC v. Zuckerberg
In an appeal in a dispute about the parties' rights in and to Facebook, an order dismissing the action is reversed where the jurisdictional claim in the amended complaint, which switched the basis of the district court's subject matter jurisdiction from the existence of diversity of citizenship to federal question, warranted full consideration and established federal question jurisdiction.

[03/27] Employers Ins. Of Wausau v. Fox Entm't Group, Inc.
In an action by insurers seeking declaratory judgment that they had no coverage obligations relating to an underlying copyright infringment suit, the "special circumstances" exception to the first-filed rule does not apply to a declaratory judgment filed in the absence of a direct threat of litigation in a forum with at least some ties to the litigation.

[03/25] Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. WB Music Corp.
In one of a number of copyright infringement cases brought by plaintiffs against various defendants in the music-publishing industry, alleging here that a rap song sampled a George Clinton/Funkadelic composition owned by plaintiff, an order awarding attorney's fees and costs to defendant as a prevailing party under 17 U.S.C. section 505 is affirmed where, when viewed as part of the larger landscape of plaintiff's litigation strategy, and despite the objective reasonableness of its royalty-receipt theory, the award was justified.

[02/27] Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp.
A party lacking standing to bring a copyright infringement suit under the Copyright Act, but who complains of competitive injury stemming from acts of alleged infringement, may not bring a Lanham Act claim, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claim, or related state law unfair competition claims, whose successful prosecution would require the litigation of the underlying infringement claim.

[02/25] BUC Int'l Corp. v. Int'l Yacht Council Ltd
In a copyright infringement case involving plaintiff's Used Boat Price Guide, jury verdict for plaintiff followed by denial of defendants' motion to reduce the judgment by settlement amount plaintiff obtained from co-defendants is reversed as the one-satisfaction rule applies to infringement claims under the Copyright Act.

[02/21] Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc.
In a dispute between two toy manufacturers involving, inter alia, trademark infringement, copyright, and dilution counterclaims, summary judgment for plaintiff/counterdefendant as to the counterclaims is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in its application of the relevant infringement test; and 2) genuine issues of material fact existed as to defendant-Mattel's copyright and dilution claims. (Amended opinion)

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[05/08] People v. Watson
In an automatic appeal in a death penalty case, the judgment is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the use of peremptory challenges in an allegedly racially discriminatory manner to excuse nine African-American prospective jurors; 2) the admissibility of photographs of the crime scene and autopsy; 3) the impeachment of a defense witness with the fact that he was serving time in a federal prison; 4) the trial court instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 8.65 regarding the doctrine of transferred intent; 5) the trial court instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 2.03 regarding willfully false or deliberately misleading statements made at trial; 6) exclusion of testimony of defendant's penalty phase investigator; 7) the removal of a juror due to potential juror bias; 8) the rejection of three penalty phase instructions; 9) whether the court had a duty to instruct the jury that a sentence of life without possibility of parole meant that defendant would never be considered for parole; 10) CALJIC No. 8.85 and CALJIC 8.88 jury instructions; 11) the constitutionality of the death penalty; 12) international law; and 13) cumulative error.

[05/08] People v. Varghese
Conviction for first-degree murder with a true finding of using a deadly weapon is affirmed over defendant's claims that the trial court erred in: 1) denying his request to conduct confidential DNA testing on what remained of a bloodstain found at the murder scene, which earlier testing indicated was his blood; and 2) refusing to suppress evidence found on a computer which was allegedly procured by defective search warrants.

[05/08] U.S. v. Brooks
In a drug related prosecution, judgment is vacated and remanded in part where the court erred in declining a request that it give instructions requiring the jury to make an essential threshold determination of drug quantity and establish the penalty range for each individual conspiracy defendant, which resulted in a defendant receiving a sentence in excess of the maximum established by section 841(b)(1)(c). The judgment is also affirmed in part where: 1) the court is allowed to find individualized drug quantities by a preponderance of the evidence as part of its calculation of an advisory Guidelines range; 2) the court is entitled to consider conduct underlying an acquitted charge during sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence; 3) a prosecution witness is allowed to testify during sentencing to clarify his testimony relating to drug quantities; and 4) the court did not improperly attribute criminal history points to the defendants.

[05/08] US v. Desinor
In a prosecution of multiple defendants for various drug-related offenses, their convictions are affirmed where: 1) defendants were not entitled to a jury charge on self-defense; 2) there was no error in a jury charge regarding the nexus between the drug conspiracy and the murder of a rival gang member; and 3) the evidence was sufficient to prove the existence of that nexus beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the sentence of one co-defendant is partially vacated and remanded where the district court imposed a consecutive sentence on that defendant for discharging a firearm without making the requisite finding of discharge.

[05/08] Thompson v. Choinski
Dismissal of a habeas petition is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) insofar as the petition challenged the conviction, it was a "second or successive motion" which did not satisfy the requirements for such a motion under 28 U.S.C. section 2255; 2) claims protesting conditions of confinement imposed by a state facility became moot when petitioner was transferred back to a federal prison; but 3) the district court erroneously dismissed claims protesting the federally imposed conditions of confinement based on petitioner's failure to exhaust state remedies and for other perceived defects in pleading.

[05/08] US v. Harris
Conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erred by denying a motion to suppress a pistol found by a police officer under the floor mat in the passenger's compartment of a taxicab in which he was riding; and 2) his statements made to federal ATF agents while being held in state custody on state criminal charges (but before he was charged in the instant case) were inadmissible for violating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

[05/06] State of Delaware v. Sturgis
A final judgment and modified sentencing order which reduced defendant's minimum mandatory Level V sentence for attempted first-degree murder is reversed where defendant's pro se motion for a reduction of his statutorily mandated minimum Level V sentence could not be considered by the Superior Court, as it did not comport with the two conditions precedent required by Del. Code ann. Tit. 11, sections 4217(b) and 4217(f).

[05/06] State of Delaware v. Meades
Grant of defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence is affirmed where: 1) defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the police detained him without a reasonable articulable suspicion that he committed, was committing, or was about to commit, a crime; and 2) the government failed to properly raise arguments that the defendant was not detained and that the police do not need to have any suspicion of criminal activity when they simply approach a person and ask some questions.

More...

Ethics & Disciplinary

[04/25] Casden Park La Brea Retail LLC v. v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc.
A neutral arbitrator who has no pecuniary interest in profits generated by his employer's business relationship with a party or a party's representative has no substantial business relationship with the party or its representative and, therefore, no duty to disclose such transactions.

[04/21] Daybreak Group, Inc. v. Three Creeks Ranch, LLC.
An order quashing plaintiff's service of summons on defendant is affirmed where the trial court did not err in considering a motion to quash on its merits, as defendant was properly represented in the lower court by an attorney licensed to practice law in California.

[04/11] Buntion v. Quarterman
Grant of conditional habeas relief on a claim of judicial bias from a conviction for capital murder and death sentence is vacated and relief denied where: 1) although various comments and actions by the trial judge both on and off the bench were highly improper; nevertheless, 2) under the AEDPA's highly deferential standard, a state habeas court's decision was neither an unreasonable application of controlling Supreme Court precedent, nor did it involve an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.

[04/01] Stein v. Disciplinary Bd. of the State of New Mexico
In a dispute between plaintiffs, attorney and law firm, and the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of New Mexico, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed where: 1) defendant-Board's Chief Disciplinary Counsel's actions in a matter involving plaintiffs' advertising did not infringe any constitutionally protected interest of plaintiffs; and 2) all other actions of the defendants at issue were absolutely privileged.

[03/20] Florida Bar v. Thompson
In attorney disciplinary proceedings, sanctions are imposed on respondent due to his abuse of the processes of the court. The clerk is directed to reject for filing any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by respondent, unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar other than himself.

[01/24] In the Matter Of: Schaffer
In bankruptcy proceedings arising after a civil administrative board sustained charges against debtor-practicing dentist, revoking his dental license and assessing the costs of the proceeding, bankruptcy court's judgment holding the costs to be nondischargeable is reversed where the district court erred in holding that the costs assessed by the board were a "fine, penalty, or forfeiture" and were not "actual compensation for pecuniary loss" under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(7).

[01/17] Florida Bar v. Brown
In attorney disciplinary proceedings involving, inter alia, an alleged conflict of interest, a referee's report and a partial amended referee's report recommending that an attorney be found guilty of professional misconduct, publicly reprimanded, and required to complete ethics instruction by The Florida Bar, is disapproved in part and instead the attorney is suspended for ninety days.

[01/10] Florida Bar v. Valentine-Miller
In attorney disciplinary proceedings, a referee's report recommending that respondent-attorney be found guilty of professional misconduct and be suspended from the practice of law for three years is approved as to its findings of fact and recommendations as to guilt but the court rejects findings of mitigation and the recommended discipline. Instead, due to the serious nature of the misconduct, as well as the harm respondent caused, the court finds disbarment is warranted.

More...

Evidence

[05/08] People v. Watson
In an automatic appeal in a death penalty case, the judgment is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the use of peremptory challenges in an allegedly racially discriminatory manner to excuse nine African-American prospective jurors; 2) the admissibility of photographs of the crime scene and autopsy; 3) the impeachment of a defense witness with the fact that he was serving time in a federal prison; 4) the trial court instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 8.65 regarding the doctrine of transferred intent; 5) the trial court instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 2.03 regarding willfully false or deliberately misleading statements made at trial; 6) exclusion of testimony of defendant's penalty phase investigator; 7) the removal of a juror due to potential juror bias; 8) the rejection of three penalty phase instructions; 9) whether the court had a duty to instruct the jury that a sentence of life without possibility of parole meant that defendant would never be considered for parole; 10) CALJIC No. 8.85 and CALJIC 8.88 jury instructions; 11) the constitutionality of the death penalty; 12) international law; and 13) cumulative error.

[05/08] People v. Varghese
Conviction for first-degree murder with a true finding of using a deadly weapon is affirmed over defendant's claims that the trial court erred in: 1) denying his request to conduct confidential DNA testing on what remained of a bloodstain found at the murder scene, which earlier testing indicated was his blood; and 2) refusing to suppress evidence found on a computer which was allegedly procured by defective search warrants.

[05/08] Charles A. Pratt Constr. Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Comm'n
In an action wherein plaintiff attempted to set aside a decision by the California Coastal Commission denying a coastal development permit under the California Coastal Act, and sought for damages on regulatory taking grounds, judgment denying a petition for writ of administrative or ordinary mandate and dismissing plaintiff's taking claim as unripe is affirmed where: 1) the agency had the ultimate authority to ensure that coastal development conformed to the policies embodied in the state's Coastal Act; 2) the agency's reasons for denying the permit were well supported by the record; and 3) the agency only issued one formal decision which neither foreclosed the question of what development will be allowed, nor precluded plaintiff from submitting other development plans.

[05/08] U.S. v. Brooks
In a drug related prosecution, judgment is vacated and remanded in part where the court erred in declining a request that it give instructions requiring the jury to make an essential threshold determination of drug quantity and establish the penalty range for each individual conspiracy defendant, which resulted in a defendant receiving a sentence in excess of the maximum established by section 841(b)(1)(c). The judgment is also affirmed in part where: 1) the court is allowed to find individualized drug quantities by a preponderance of the evidence as part of its calculation of an advisory Guidelines range; 2) the court is entitled to consider conduct underlying an acquitted charge during sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence; 3) a prosecution witness is allowed to testify during sentencing to clarify his testimony relating to drug quantities; and 4) the court did not improperly attribute criminal history points to the defendants.

[05/08] US v. Desinor
In a prosecution of multiple defendants for various drug-related offenses, their convictions are affirmed where: 1) defendants were not entitled to a jury charge on self-defense; 2) there was no error in a jury charge regarding the nexus between the drug conspiracy and the murder of a rival gang member; and 3) the evidence was sufficient to prove the existence of that nexus beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the sentence of one co-defendant is partially vacated and remanded where the district court imposed a consecutive sentence on that defendant for discharging a firearm without making the requisite finding of discharge.

[05/08] Thompson v. Choinski
Dismissal of a habeas petition is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) insofar as the petition challenged the conviction, it was a "second or successive motion" which did not satisfy the requirements for such a motion under 28 U.S.C. section 2255; 2) claims protesting conditions of confinement imposed by a state facility became moot when petitioner was transferred back to a federal prison; but 3) the district court erroneously dismissed claims protesting the federally imposed conditions of confinement based on petitioner's failure to exhaust state remedies and for other perceived defects in pleading.

[05/08] US v. Harris
Conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erred by denying a motion to suppress a pistol found by a police officer under the floor mat in the passenger's compartment of a taxicab in which he was riding; and 2) his statements made to federal ATF agents while being held in state custody on state criminal charges (but before he was charged in the instant case) were inadmissible for violating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

[05/06] State of Delaware v. Meades
Grant of defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence is affirmed where: 1) defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the police detained him without a reasonable articulable suspicion that he committed, was committing, or was about to commit, a crime; and 2) the government failed to properly raise arguments that the defendant was not detained and that the police do not need to have any suspicion of criminal activity when they simply approach a person and ask some questions.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[05/07] Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.

[05/07] Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.510, subdivision (c), and the court's inherent authority to control its ministerial officers and other persons connected with a judicial proceeding in furtherance of justice, authorize the court to require a deposition reporter to provide a copy of a deposition transcript to a non-noticing party in a pending action for a reasonable fee which, in the absence of an agreement between the interested parties, may be set by the court upon a proper evidentiary showing.

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

[05/06] Hadley v. Gutierrez
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action involving excessive force claims against defendants-police officers, an order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking qualified immunity is reversed in part where the district court erred in: 1) refusing to grant one defendant qualified immunity on plaintiff's excessive force claim; and 2) refusing to grant qualified immunity to both defendants on plaintiff's conspiracy claim.

[05/05] Torres v. City of Madera
In a civil rights action arising in circumstances in which defendant-officer, intending to deploy a Taser device holstered near her firearm, instead drew and fired her service weapon, killing an individual, summary judgment for defendants is reversed and remanded where: 1) contrary to the ruling below, decedent was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; and 2) defendant-officer's mistake is governed by Fourth Amendment reasonableness analysis, requiring a remand for further proceedings.

[05/05] Benton v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
In an action against defendant alleging a violation of the Arkansas Securities Act and common law fraud, dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state facts on which relief could be granted is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' complaint was devoid of any allegations which might establish that defendant-Merrill Lynch materially aided the fraudulent sale of promissory notes, for purposes of a claim under Arkansas Securities Act; and 2) the allegations in the complaint did not include factual allegations which demonstrate Merrill Lynch assisted or even knew of the fraud, for purposes of a common law fraud claim.

[05/05] OSI, Inc. v. US
In an action relating to the Air Force's use of certain land, now owned by plaintiff, as a landfill in prior decades, wherein plaintiff raised tort claims under the Federal Tort Acts (FTCA), claims of cost recovery under the CERCLA, and a citizen suit under the Resource Conversation Act (RCRA), summary judgment for government is affirmed where: 1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's RCRA citizen suit claim while federal facility remedial action was ongoing; and 2) the remaining aspects of plaintiff's appeal were without merit.

[05/02] Dill v. Gen. Amer. Life Ins. Co.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2) and 50(b) are non-jurisdictional claims processing rules that provide an affirmative defense to untimely filings if raised, but which can be forfeited if not timely raised.

More...

Intellectual Property

[05/08] Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.
In a patent case pertaining to alleged infringement by Microsoft and Dell of two patents owned by plaintiff-Lucent, summary judgment of non-infringement as to one patent is vacated and remanded where the district court's construction of the term "terminal device" was erroneous. Summary judgment of non-infringement as to another patent is affirmed as the district court's construction of the phrase "each successive iteration including the steps of" was proper.

[05/07] Solomon Techs., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In proceedings involving imports and sales of certain Toyota hybrid vehicles, an order finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and refusing to enter an order excluding Toyota's products is affirmed on the basis of noninfringement, although the circuit court declines to resolve the construction of a "continuously variable" limitation.

[05/07] Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc.
In a patent infringement action involving automated financial account processing systems, summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendants is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the construction of "remote interface" only encompasses publicly-accessible computer equipment and not consumer owned personal computers; 2) thus, defendant-Federated was entitled to summary judgment; 3) defendants-TD Ameritrade and HSBC were entitled to summary judgment only with respect to systems that are accessed solely via consumer-owned personal computers; but 4) further proceedings were required as to those defendants based on certain modified claim constructions.

[05/06] PSN Illinois, LLC v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc.
In a patent infringement action involving a method of fabricating porcelain veneers for teeth, summary judgment of non-infringement is affirmed where: 1) although the district court erred in excluding all finishing steps and construed the claim term "ready for mounting" too narrowly; nevertheless, 2) no reasonable jury could conclude that the accused process included an equivalent of the "ready for mounting" limitation under the doctrine of equivalents.

[05/06] Estate of Coll-Monge v. Inner Peace Movement
In an action for trademark infringement and related claims, summary judgment for defendants-non-profits is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in holding that a non-profit corporation cannot be a related company whose use of the trademark is controlled by the mark's registrant; and 2) there remain disputed issues of fact regarding both the doctrine's applicability in this case, and the capacity in which testator registered the marks with the USPTO.

[05/06] U.S. v. Armstead
Convictions for felony willful copyright infringement for private financial gain are affirmed over allegations that the government failed to produce sufficient evidence that DVDs sold had an aggregate value of more than $2,500 in "retail value" as used in section 2319(b)(1).

[05/02] Wabtec Corp. v. Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB
In a licensing agreement dispute involving arbitration issues, appeal from a denial of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction and expedited discovery is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the district court's order was not an appealable interlocutory under the collateral order doctrine or the Federal Arbitration Act.

[04/29] Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Rambus, Inc.
In a patent case, an order denying plaintiff's attorney's fees application and entering findings adverse to defendant is vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss plaintiff's complaint where the case became moot once the defendant offered to pay the full amount of attorney's fees.

More...

Legal Malpractice

[04/29] Kaplan v. Mamelak
In an action involving claims of medical malpractice and battery against defendant-neurosurgeon, judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where the trial court erred in: 1) prohibiting discovery on the tolling of the statute of limitations for days which defendant was out of the state; and 2) sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's action for battery on grounds that defendant did not intent to operate beyond plaintiff's consent.

[04/29] Gibson v. Moskowitz
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and state law action brought by the estate of a mentally disabled inmate who died from severe dehydration, a judgment pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of the estate is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there was sufficient evidence to show deliberate indifference on the part of defendant-psychiatrist; 2) the evidence supported the compensatory and punitive damages awards; 3) the punitive damages award was not constitutionally excessive; 4) claims of evidentiary errors are rejected; 5) there was no error in applying Michigan's "high tier cap" on non-economic damages for medical malpractice; but 6) a remand was required as the district court failed to state a reason as to how it allocated the award between the statutorily capped malpractice claim and the deliberate indifference claims.

[04/24] Rodriguez v. Bank of the West
In a case wherein a lawyer filed negligence claims against several banks after the lawyer's office manager opened bank accounts in the lawyer's name with a forged signature, deposited client funds, and stole from those accounts, dismissal of lawyer's action is affirmed where the lawyer was not deemed a "customer" to which the banks owed a duty of care.

[04/23] Giesse v. Sec'y of Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs.
In a suit seeking damages subsequent to an alleged wrongful termination of medical care, grant of motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claims are not appeals from an administrative determination since plaintiff sought damages and not reinstatement of services; 2) there was no due process violation since plaintiff does not have a vested property interest in 100 days of post-hospital extended care; and 3) there is no implied right of action as the Medicare Act has provided a mechanism to address claims of wrongful denials of benefits and provided a remedy in the form of reinstatement of care.

[04/16] Torres-Lazarini v. US
In a medical malpractice suit brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) wherein plaintiff alleged that the medical staff at a Puerto Rican hospital failed to properly diagnose an injury to his right shoulder, judgment for defendant is affirmed where the district court's findings of no medical malpractice were fully supported by the expert testimony and medical records presented at trial.

[04/11] Metwest Inc. v. Rodriguez
Petitioner's motion seeking dismissal and fees was a motion pursuant to section 74.351(b) of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code, and thus is reviewable by interlocutory appeal per the decision today in Lewis v. Funderburk, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2007).

[04/11] Hill Regional Hospital v. Runnels
Petitioner's motion seeking dismissal and fees was a motion pursuant to section 74.351(b) of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code, and thus is reviewable by interlocutory appeal per the decision today in Lewis v. Funderburk, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2007).

[04/11] Danos v. Rittger
A court of appeals decision affirming a trial courts grant of a motion to dismiss is reversed where section 74.351 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code allows a claimant to cure a deficiency and that requirement may be satisfied by serving a report from a separate expert.

More...

Patent

[05/08] Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.
In a patent case pertaining to alleged infringement by Microsoft and Dell of two patents owned by plaintiff-Lucent, summary judgment of non-infringement as to one patent is vacated and remanded where the district court's construction of the term "terminal device" was erroneous. Summary judgment of non-infringement as to another patent is affirmed as the district court's construction of the phrase "each successive iteration including the steps of" was proper.

[05/07] Solomon Techs., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In proceedings involving imports and sales of certain Toyota hybrid vehicles, an order finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and refusing to enter an order excluding Toyota's products is affirmed on the basis of noninfringement, although the circuit court declines to resolve the construction of a "continuously variable" limitation.

[05/07] Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc.
In a patent infringement action involving automated financial account processing systems, summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendants is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the construction of "remote interface" only encompasses publicly-accessible computer equipment and not consumer owned personal computers; 2) thus, defendant-Federated was entitled to summary judgment; 3) defendants-TD Ameritrade and HSBC were entitled to summary judgment only with respect to systems that are accessed solely via consumer-owned personal computers; but 4) further proceedings were required as to those defendants based on certain modified claim constructions.

[05/06] PSN Illinois, LLC v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc.
In a patent infringement action involving a method of fabricating porcelain veneers for teeth, summary judgment of non-infringement is affirmed where: 1) although the district court erred in excluding all finishing steps and construed the claim term "ready for mounting" too narrowly; nevertheless, 2) no reasonable jury could conclude that the accused process included an equivalent of the "ready for mounting" limitation under the doctrine of equivalents.

[04/29] Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Rambus, Inc.
In a patent case, an order denying plaintiff's attorney's fees application and entering findings adverse to defendant is vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss plaintiff's complaint where the case became moot once the defendant offered to pay the full amount of attorney's fees.

[04/28] Litecubes, LLC v. N. Light Prods., Inc.
In a patent and copyright infringement case, denial of a motion to dismiss by the defendant-appellant for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the denial of a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is affirmed where: 1) the district court need not consider whether the alleged patent infringement occurred in the U.S. in order to determine subject matter jurisdiction; 2) the extraterritorial limits of the Copyright Act apply to the elements of the claim, and not to the question of subject matter jurisdiction; 3) the court predicts that Eighth Circuit law would find that the term "sale" should be interpreted consistently in copyright and patent law; and 4) there was sufficient evidence for the jury verdict and the denial of a JMOL.

[04/24] City of Hope Nat'l Med. Ctr. v. Genentech
In a breach of contract and fiduciary duty case against Genentech, judgment awarding plaintiff-medical center over $300 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages is reversed in part as to the punitive damages award where: 1) the trial court erred in instructing the jury that a fiduciary relationship is necessarily created when a party, in return for royalties, entrusts a secret idea to another to develop, patent, and commercially develop; and 2) punitive damages are not awarded for breaching a contract.

[04/23] Dominant Semiconductors Sdn. Bhd. v. Osram GmbH
In an action raising claims of unfair competition, intentional interference with contractual relations, interference with prospective economic advantage, and trade libel arising from defendant's communications to its customers that plaintiff infringed several of its patents, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant produced evidence that its earlier claims of infringement were not objectively baseless; and 2) plaintiff had no evidence that defendant acted in bad faith.

More...

Trade Dress

[12/26] McNeil Nutritionals, Inc. v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC
In a trade dress infringement action brought by the marketer of the artificial sweetener Splenda against defendants, who package and distribute sucralose as store brands to a number of retail grocery chains, alleging their product packaging is confusingly similar to Splenda's, denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed in part, but reversed in part as to certain boxes and bags where plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the third element of trade dress infringement, as there was a likelihood of confusion between those products' trade dresses and the analogous Splenda trade dress.

[09/12] General Motors Corp. v. Urban Gorilla, LLC
In trademark dispute over steel "body kits" designed to make a truck look like a military-style vehicle, denial of plaintiff GM's motion for preliminary injunction is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that GM failed to make a strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits that the "body kits" infringe upon and dilute GM's trade dress rights in its Hummer line of vehicles.

[08/22] Optimum Techs., Inc. v. Henkel Consumer Adhesives, Inc.
In dispute arising out of distributorship agreement and competing adhesive products for floor coverings, judgment for defendants is affirmed over claims that the district court erred in granting: 1) partial summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition; 2) summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's claims of breach of confidential relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation; and 3) granting defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's trademark and unfair competition claims, due to a lack of evidence establishing plaintiff's damages.

[07/30] Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Int'l Ltd.
In suit alleging dress infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising regarding a kitchen device known as the "Tartmaster," order granting directed verdict for defendants on trade dress claims, and finding for defendants on other claims are affirmed as there was no error or abuse of discretion.

[06/29] Hansen Beverage Co. v. Nat'l Beverage Corp.
Grant of a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant from infringing upon the trade dress of Hansen Beverage Company's line of "Monster" energy drinks with defendant's line of "Freek" energy drinks is reversed where the district court abused its discretion in determining that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits, as a finding of a likelihood of confusion was clearly erroneous.

[03/28] ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc.
Summary judgment for defendants on claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related false advertising is reversed in part pending response of the New York Court of Appeals to the following certified questions: 1) Does New York common law permit the owner of a famous mark or trade dress to assert property rights therein by virtue of the owner's prior use of the mark or dress in a foreign country?; and 2) If so, how famous must a foreign mark be to permit a foreign mark owner to bring a claim for unfair competition?

[11/27] Audi AG v. D'Amato
In a case arising from defendant's use of the domain name www.audisport.com to sell goods and merchandise displaying Audi's name and trademarks, summary judgment, injunctive relief, and an award of attorneys' fees to Audi on trademark, trade dress, and AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) claims are affirmed where: 1) there was a likelihood of confusion for purposes of trademark infringement, and defenses to the claim including laches, consent, and fair use, failed; 2) trademark dilution was proven; 3) a finding that defendant violated the ACPA was proper; 4) injunctive relief was warranted; and 5) given his bad faith use of counterfeit marks, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees under 15 U.S.C. section 1117(a).

[10/25] Gen. Motors Corp. v. Lanard Toys, Inc.
In a trademark and trade dress infringement suit filed against a toy company by GMC involving a series of toy vehicles resembling GMC's Hummer, summary judgment for GMC is affirmed where: 1) despite the district court's failure to adequately discuss the Frisch factors, summary judgment was appropriate on the trademark infringement claim due to the weight of the factors in favor of a finding a likelihood of confusion; 2) GMC established that there were no material issues of fact as to any of the three elements of trade dress infringement; and 3) denial of summary judgment on laches and estoppel defenses was proper.

More...

Trade Secrets

[03/27] TSMC N. Am. v. Semiconductor Mfg. Int'l Corp.
In an action seeking to enjoin proceedings instituted in Beijing People's High Court in China pursuant to choice of law and forum selection provisions in a purported "settlement agreement" between the parties, denial of a motion for an antisuit injunction is affirmed in light of international comity and judicial restraint considerations.

[02/29] Heritage Mktg. & Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Chrustawka
In action for breach of contract, conspiracy to defraud, defamation, tortious interference with economic advantage, and violation of the California Trade Secrets Act, summary adjudication on five causes of action based on the expiration of the statute of limitations is affirmed as Code of Civil Procedure section 351 did not toll the various limitations periods.

[02/20] CytoDyn, Inc. v. Amerimmune Pharm., Inc.
In suit claiming unjust enrichment based on the alleged misappropriation of plaintiff's patents and trademarks, award of attorney's fees is reversed where the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees under a provision of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, as the complaint cannot be read as alleging a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. The court also erred in concluding that attorney's fees were recoverable under the indemnification clause of a licensing agreement.

[01/14] Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (Eastland Med. Group, Inc.)
In case arising from suit for contract- and trade secret-related causes of action, petition for writ of mandate challenging motion to stay litigation pending arbitration is granted where Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 mandates a stay of judicial proceedings pending completion of the arbitration in these circumstances.

[01/10] Patriot Homes, Inc. v. Forest River Housing, Inc.
In a suit alleging copyright infringement and violation of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act after a modular home designer began using the same designs as its competitor, preliminary injunction against defendant prohibiting it from misappropriating plaintiff's copyrights, confidential information, trade secrets, and computer files is vacated and remanded where the injunction lacked specificity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d).

[11/19] GO Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
In a suit alleging trade secret theft and antitrust injuries committed by defendant Microsoft that purportedly drove "PenPoint"-plaintiffs out of business, dismissal of the complaint on statute of limitations grounds is affirmed over multiple arguments, including plaintiffs' claim that fraudulent concealment delayed the ticking of the clock.

[11/15] Navigant Consulting Inc. v. Wilkinson
In an action brought against two of plaintiff-consulting company's former employees alleging, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and misappropriation of trade secrets, a judgment against defendants is affirmed with the exception of an award of attorney's fees against one defendant over claims of error regarding: 1) the sufficiency of the evidence; 2) jury instructions; 3) erroneous admission of evidence from plaintiff's controller; and 4) duplicative damages.

[10/12] San Jose Constr., Inc. v. S.B.C.C., Inc.
In an action by plaintiff-construction company against its former employee and his new employer, summary judgment for the new employer is reversed as, contrary to the ruling below, there were triable issues of fact with regard to causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition.

More...

Trademark

[05/06] Estate of Coll-Monge v. Inner Peace Movement
In an action for trademark infringement and related claims, summary judgment for defendants-non-profits is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in holding that a non-profit corporation cannot be a related company whose use of the trademark is controlled by the mark's registrant; and 2) there remain disputed issues of fact regarding both the doctrine's applicability in this case, and the capacity in which testator registered the marks with the USPTO.

[04/29] Aktieselksabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc.
In an action brought opposing a trademark application, summary judgment for applicant is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court may consider all relevant issues brought by either party regardless of whether they were brought before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB); 2) the district court incorrectly applied a heightened threshold for a complaint; 3) under Section 2(d) an intent-to-use applicant prevails over any opposer who began using a similar mark after the intent-to-use filing date; 4) opposer provided sufficient facts to establish constructive use of the trademark; 5) opposer's allegations of bad faith intent to use the trademark were sufficient to give notice of the claim; and 6) dismissal of opposer's allegation of common law fraudulent misrepresentation was proper.

[04/14] Nasalok Coating Corp. v. Nylok Corp.
In a cancellation proceeding involving parties engaged in business related to self-locking fasteners using nylon locking elements, summary judgment for appellee is affirmed where, because appellant's claim of trademark invalidity in its petition to cancel a mark's registration amounted to a collateral attack on a judgment in an earlier infringement suit, the rules of defendant preclusion were properly applied to bar appellant from asserting that claim.

[04/07] N. Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc.
In a case where the district court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from engaging in certain alleged acts of false advertising and trademark infringement, order is vacated and remanded in part where: 1) district court erred in presuming that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction merely because defendants' advertisements were literally false; and 2) it is unclear whether the district court was correct in holding that the nature of trademark infringement gives rise to a presumption of irreparable injury in light of eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006).

[04/04] Angel Flight of Georgia, Inc. v. Angel Flight Southwest, Inc.
In a trademark infringement action where the district court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting "Angel Flight America" and affiliates from using the "Angel Flight" mark in a number of southern states for certain business purposes, the judgment is affirmed where the district court did not err in: 1) ruling that the defendant infringed plaintiff's common law trademark rights by using the mark in a manner that created a substantial risk of confusion; 2) ruling that plaintiff had not acquiesced to defendant's infringing use and was not estopped by laches from enforcing its common law rights in the mark; 3) issuing an injunction which was tailored to protect plaintiff's rights and prevent the public from confusion; and 4) cancelling a trademark on the ground that the registration had been obtained through fraud.

[03/26] Intersport Inc. v. NCAA
In an action involving plaintiff's license from the March Madness Athletic Association to use the trademark term "March Madness" for various business purposes, declaratory judgment in favor plaintiff is affirmed over claims that the circuit court: 1) erroneously interpreted the term "videos" as including material transmitted to Sprint PCS cell phone customers on demand; 2) impermissibly rewrote the language of plaintiff's license agreement; and 3) had an insufficient factual basis to enter judgment on plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim.

[03/25] Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
In an insurance coverage and bad faith lawsuit arising out of two lawsuits involving members of the rock band, The Doors, dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint is reversed and remanded where: 1) the underlying complaints raised at least the potential for coverage under the operative insurance policies; and 2) the district court abused its discretion by not giving plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint.

[03/04] PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. US Polo Ass'n
In trademark infringement case involving the Ralph Lauren trademarks, jury verdict denying plaintiff's claims of infringement and finding three of defendants' four contested marks did not infringe the plaintiff's polo player trademark is affirmed over claims that the district court erred in: 1) admitting evidence of discussions at settlement negotiations; 2) excluding a document prepared by an agent of a defendant that arguably reflected intent to use trademarks similar to the Ralph Lauren trademarks to compete unfairly; and 3) refusing to give a requested jury instruction.

More...