Antitrust
[07/18] LA ex rel Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co.
In a parens patriae action alleging violations of Louisiana's antitrust laws, denial of plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to state court after removal to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act is affirmed where: 1) the Louisiana attorney general has power to bring parens patriae antitrust actions and possesses broad powers to vindicate the interests of the state; 2) the policyholders and not the state are the real parties in interest due to the state's request for treble damages; and 3) plaintiff waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity.
[07/15] Campfield v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
In a suit alleging violations of the Sherman Act, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), and tortious interference with contractual relations, dismissal and summary judgment for defendant, and a decision not to rule on plaintiff's objection to discovery orders are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claims under section 2 of the Sherman Act failed to allege an appropriate market; 2) defendants dod not engage in per se horizontal restraint of trade under section 1 of the Act; 3) claims under section 1 of the Sherman Act failed for failure to allege a legally relevant market; 4) plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence for a CCPA claim; 5) tortious interference claims failed for lack of evidence; and 6) there was no abuse of discretion in not ruling on plaintiff's discovery motion.
[07/11] Rick-Mik Enters. Inc. v. Equilon Enters., LLC
In an action brought by franchisees, Shell and Texaco gasoline stations, alleging that defendant-franchisor violated antitrust laws by illegally tying two distinct products (the franchises and certain credit-card processing services), dismissal of antitrust and related state law counts from the complaint is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' complaint failed to allege market power in the relevant market; 2) in the alleged franchising context, credit card processing services are not a product distinct from the franchise itself; 3) price-fixing allegations were impermissibly vague; and 4) plaintiffs waived the opportunity to attempt to cure such deficiencies.
[07/02] Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
In a republished opinion, a petition for review of an order of the FTC requiring petitioner to divest assets acquired from a Pennsylvania company since they would likely result in a substantial lessening of competition or tend to create a monopoly is denied where: 1) the FTC correctly applied the legal standards of burdens of proof and persuasion; 2) the FTC properly analyzed the "potential entry" defense and had substantial evidence to conclude that "potential entry" evidence was insufficient to rebut the prima facie case; 3) substantial evidence supported its factual findings; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in the issuance of its remedy provisions. (Substituted opinion)
[05/14] N. Texas Speciality Physicians v. FTC
In a revised opinion, a petition for review of an opinion and order by the FTC regarding allegations of price fixing is granted and the case remanded to modify the order where: 1) the FTC had jurisdiction by virtue of the adverse effects to out-of-state parties; 2) although defendant is a single entity, it is controlled by a group of competitors with substantially similar economic interests; 3) a quick-look analysis was appropriate since the anticompetitive effects were obvious; 4) denial of a discovery motion did not violate due process; and 5) a subsection of the remedial order was overly broad and internally inconsistent.
More...
Bankruptcy Law
[07/22] In Re: Repine
Judgment against attorney for attempting to collect fees from debtor in violation of a stay imposed by a bankruptcy court is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) attorney willfully violated the stay in attempting to collect her fees; 2) attorney's refusal to consent to an agreed order to allow debtor to be released from civil incarceration caused debtor actual harm; 3) damages awarded to debtor for lost wages were appropriate; 4) debtor failed to set forth specific information regarding emotional damages; and 5) awarding attorney's fees to debtor was proper.
[07/22] Bondi v. Capital & Fin. Asset Mgmt. S.A.
Denial of motion by debtor in foreign bankruptcy proceedings to enjoin actions brought against it in the United States is affirmed where the district court acted within its sound discretion in interpreting 11 U.S.C. section 304(c)'s instruction to assure an economical and expeditious administration of a foreign estate.
[07/21] In re Reilly
Where a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor indicates the intent to exempt her entire interest in a given property by claiming an exemption of its full value and the trustee does not object in a timely manner, the debtor is entitled to the property in its entirety, even if it is later discovered that the property has a higher value than the exempted amount.
[07/17] Phar-Mor, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.
In the bankruptcy context, a vendor's administrative-expense priority on its reclamation claim is not effectively extinguished when the goods subject to reclamation are sold and the proceeds used to satisfy a secured creditor's superior claim.
[07/15] In re: US Med., Inc.
In a bankruptcy proceeding, a ruling finding that defendant-creditor was not a "non-statutory insider" of debtor for purposes of 11 U.S.C. section 547(b)(4)(B) is affirmed where: 1) the bankruptcy court did not make any findings that the transactions between creditor and debtor were not at arm's length, or that there was undue influence or control by creditor; and 2) thus it erred in holding creditor to be a non-statutory insider of debtor. A creditor may only be a non-statutory insider of a debtor when the creditor's transaction of business with the debtor is not at arm's length; a bankruptcy court, however, may find a statutory insider without this requirement.
More...
Education
[07/17] Corey H. v. Bd. of Educ.of the City of Chicago
In the context of enforcing a consent decree governing the placement of disabled students in Chicago schools, a district court order is not ripe for review where defendant-school board has not shown that the order will necessarily result in harm.
[07/14] Jones v. Regents of the Univ. of California
In a nurse's suit alleging discrimination and retaliation by employer-UCLA, denial of an injunction barring defendant from requiring that administrative complaints of whistleblower retaliation be presented on a form that allegedly violates free speech rights is affirmed primarily where, as the university represented, the form was optional and not mandatory, and thus an injunction was unnecessary.
[07/11] Redding v. Safford Unified Sch. Dist. #1
In a civil rights action arising when, on the basis of an uncorroborated tip from the culpable eighth grader, public middle school officials searched futilely for prescription-strength ibuprofen by strip searching plaintiff-thirteen year-old honor student, grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) school officials violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; and 2) the constitutional principles at issue were clearly established at the time officials directed and conducted the search. (En banc opinion)
[07/09] Cohen v. NuVasive, Inc.
In actions claiming negligence, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from defendant's purchase of human remains from bodies of plaintiffs' close family members that had been donated to UCLA for medical research and education, dismissal of the complaints pursuant to demurrers is reversed in part as to the negligence claims where: 1) defendant owed plaintiffs a duty of care based primarily on the foreseeability of their emotional injury; 2) the facts alleged in the complaints were sufficient to establish a duty of care and the sustaining of the demurrers to the negligence counts was error. However, the demurrers were properly sustained as to the other counts.
[05/29] Doninger v. Niehoff
In proceedings involving an application to preliminarily enjoin a public high school's decision, which disqualified plaintiff's daughter from running for school office after she posted a vulgar and misleading message on an independently operated, publicly-accessible web "blog", judgment denying relief is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on her purported First Amendment and equal protection claims.
More...
Labor & Employment Law
[07/23] Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp.
In an employment discrimination case involving an employment agreement containing a mandatory arbitration clause, denial of defendant-employer's motion to compel arbitration and partial summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) for purposes of a breach-of-agreement theory, plaintiff did not properly initiate arbitration under the terms of his employment agreement via a letter he sent; and 2) the district court improperly granted summary judgment in plaintiff's favor on the issue of waiver.
[07/23] Magallanes v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co.
Dismissal of an employment-discrimination suit because the parties had settled is reversed where defendant-employer did not meet its burden to prove that plaintiff's attorney had in fact been authorized to enter into a settlement agreement.
[07/22] Lopez v. Imperial Cty. Sheriff
In a case arising after respondent terminated appellants from their jobs as correctional sergeants, judgment remanding matter to the Employee Appeals Board is affirmed where the Board's previous tie votes regarding appellants' termination were the equivalent of a failure to act, and the trial court did not err in remanding the matters for the Board to conduct another vote.
[07/22] Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Ct
In an action involving alleged violations of laws governing rest and meal breaks on transfer from the state supreme court, the court of appeals rules that: 1) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking rest periods, they need only provide, not ensure, rest periods are taken; 2) employers need only authorize and permit rest periods every four hours or major fraction thereof and they need not, where impracticable, be in the middle of each work period; 3) employers are not required to provide a meal period for every five consecutive hours worked; 4) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking meal periods, they need only provide them and not ensure they are taken; and 5) while employers cannot coerce, require or compel employees to work off the clock, they can only be held liable for employees working off the clock if they knew or should have known they were doing so.
[07/22] Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers' Assoc. v. County of Los Angeles
In a case brought by certain retired deputy sheriffs challenging Los Angeles county's policies concerning payment for excess accumulated vacation hours, judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where the policy discriminated against deputies suffering work-related injuries in violation of Labor Code section 4850.
More...
Trademark
[07/17] Guaranty Bank v. Chubb Corp.
In a suit involving an insurer's obligation to defend its insured under an "advertising injury" policy when the insured was sued over the similarity of its name to a competitor's, summary judgment to the defendant-insurer is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff-insured had failed to give defendant timely notice of the suit and 2) plaintiff had been sued for common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition, but plaintiff's policy covered only suits involving registered trademarks.
[05/29] UT Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info. and Research
In an action claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition, and cybersquatting, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) trademark infringement and unfair competition claims failed as plaintiff did not show that "Utah Lighthouse" was protectable, that defendant's use was in connection with any goods or services, and that defendant was likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the source of goods sold on its online bookstore; 2) defendant lacked a bad faith intent to profit from the use of plaintiff's trademark in several domain names under the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA); and 3) defendant's website met safe harbor conditions of the ACPA since it was a parody.
[05/29] Stoller v. Pure Fishing, Inc.
In a trademark dispute, default judgment against plaintiff on a counterclaim and dismissal of his appeal for failure to prosecute is affirmed where: 1) the arguments made in plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion could have been addressed by the court of appeals in the underlying appeal that was dismissed for failure to prosecute; 2) the district court's one line order denying his motion did not violate Circuit Rule 50 since the court's reasoning was clear from the record and a brief statement; and 3) plaintiff's appeal of a determination that he was a vexatious litigant was not a proper issue in the present appeal as the court's decision on the underlying merits was not before the appeals court.
[05/23] Paulsson Geophysical Servs. Inc. v. Sigmar
Grant of a preliminary injunction in order to prevent defendant from using plaintiff's trademarks and other proprietary information is affirmed where: 1) the court had proper subject matter jurisdiction since defendant's activities had a substantial effect on U.S. commerce under the Lanham Act; 2) defendant used plaintiff's exact marks, supporting the court's finding of a likelihood of confusion; 3) plaintiff would have been irreparably harmed if defendant would have been allowed to work using plaintiff's mark.
[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.
More...
|
