Antitrust
[03/09] Wampler v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.
In an antitrust action on behalf of a putative class of all residents of multiple dwelling units (MDUs) in five states who were limited to voice, video, and Internet service by contracts with defendant AT&T, dismissal of the action is affirmed where a single MDU (or MDUs in the aggregate) could not plausibly be considered a relevant geographic market for antitrust purposes. (Revised opinion)
[03/03] Byers v. Intuit, Inc.
In plaintiff's putative class action on behalf of U.S. taxpayers against the IRS and a consortium of companies in the electronic tax preparation and filing industry (FFA) claiming violations of the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA) in the charging of fees in exchange for providing e-filing services, as well as a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, dismissal of both claims is affirmed where: 1) the district court was correct in holding that the IOAA does not apply to the FFA members, as it only applies to a government agency and none of the exceptions in Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 1999) apply; and 2) the district court did not err in dismissing the Sherman Act claim as the FFA members are entitled to conduct-based implied antitrust immunity with respect to the anti-competitive action taken pursuant to the Ceiling Provisions of the 2005 Agreement with the IRS.
[03/02] Mac's Shell Serv., Inc. v. Shell Oil Prods. Co.
In an action under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (Act) by service station franchisees, alleging that a petroleum franchisor, Shell, and its assignee had constructively terminated their franchises and constructively failed to renew their franchise relationships by substantially changing the rental terms that the dealers had enjoyed for years, increasing costs for many of them, a circuit court's order partially affirming judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where a franchisee who signs and operates under a renewal agreement with a franchisor may not maintain a constructive nonrenewal claim under the Act. However, the court of appeals' order is reversed in part where a franchisee cannot recover for constructive termination under the Act if the franchisor's allegedly wrongful conduct did not compel the franchisee to abandon its franchise.
[03/01] In re McNulty
Plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking victim status under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, arising from an underlying proceedings where defendant was charged in a criminal information with violating 15 U.S.C. section 1 by participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by allocating packaged-ice customers in certain areas, is denied as plaintiff is not a victim for the purposes of the CVRA.
[02/26] Resolute Natural Resources Co. v. FERC
In a petition for review of certain orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) declining to investigate allegedly anticompetitive conduct by a refining company involving oil pipelines in New Mexico, the petition is dismissed where FERC decisions not to investigate were not subject to review.
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.
[02/19] Miller v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n
In bankruptcy trustee's adversary proceeding to avoid a creditor's mortgage lien, arising from a purchase of debtors' property with a recorded mortgage containing a technical defect, decision of the district court in favor of the creditor is affirmed as considering, inter alia, a 2008 Amendment that quickly clarified that a provision applied to all mortgages, the legislature likely intended the 2007 Amendment to apply to all mortgages, whenever filed.
[02/16] US v. Edwards
Defendant's sentence and restitution order for bankruptcy fraud are affirmed where: 1) collateral estoppel did not preclude the restitution order because, although compensation to defendant's victims was the general issue in a bankruptcy settlement, the issue was not identical to the issue in the criminal proceedings; and 2) the sentence was not substantively unreasonable because the district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered defendant's history and circumstances.
[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...
Education
[03/09] Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.
In an employment discrimination and retaliation action brought by a teacher at a religious school claiming violations of the ADA, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the "ministerial exception" is vacated and remanded as, given the factual findings relating to plaintiff's primary duties as a teacher, the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying her as a ministerial employee.
[03/02] Doe v. Kamehamema Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate
In a racial discrimination action against a school district in which plaintiffs, four minor children, sought to proceed anonymously in their suit, dismissal of the action is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow anonymity because the district court did not clearly err in its conclusion that plaintiffs did not reasonably fear severe harm.
[03/01] San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.
In qui tam plaintiffs' suit seeking to recover funds on behalf of the San Francisco Unified School District under the California False Claims Act (CFCA), trial court's dismissal of the action is reversed as, under the CFCA, a vendor impliedly certifies that it complies with its express contractual requirements when it bills a public agency for providing goods and services, and allegations that the implied certification was false and had a natural tendency to influence the public agency's decision to pay for the goods or services are sufficient to survive a demurrer.
[02/23] Fairchild v. Liberty Indep. Sch. Dist.
In an action claiming that defendants violated plaintiff's First Amendment rights after firing her from a public school teacher position because they did not allow her at a school board meeting to present her side of her troubles with a teacher for whom she had been an aide, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the board's policies were both viewpoint-neutral and reasonable in light of the forum's purpose.
[02/23] D.L. v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 497
In an action challenging a local school district's conclusion that plaintiff-students were ineligible for special education services, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs abandoned their Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act claims by failing to provide supplemental briefing to clarify and update the claims; and 2) plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not establish any causation between defendants' allegedly discriminatory conduct and any injury suffered by plaintiffs.
More...
Labor & Employment Law
[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] Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.
In an employment discrimination and retaliation action brought by a teacher at a religious school claiming violations of the ADA, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the "ministerial exception" is vacated and remanded as, given the factual findings relating to plaintiff's primary duties as a teacher, the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying her as a ministerial employee.
[03/08] McBeth v. Himes
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of an investigation by the sheriff's office and the Colorado Department of Human Services that resulted in plaintiff surrendering her license to run a daycare facility in Colorado, partial summary judgment based on qualified immunity to defendant-officials is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff voluntarily relinquished her license before any suspension proceedings could take place; and 2) defendants made a prima facie showing that they acted objectively reasonably when they sought suspension of plaintiff's daycare license. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiff failed to allege and prove that the state officials lacked cause to seek suspension of her license.
[03/05] Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.
[03/05] Quasius v. Schwan Food Co.
In an employment discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where defendant failed to file a motion to withdraw his dispositive admissions after the district court provided ample notice and opportunity to do so.
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.
[12/23] In Re Sones
Decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, denying petitioner's registration application for the mark "One Nation Under God" for charity bracelets, is vacated and remanded as a picture is not a mandatory requirement for a website-based specimen of use, and the test for an acceptable website-based specimen, just as any other specimen, is simply that it must in some way evince that the mark is "associated" with the goods and services as an indicator of source.
[12/03] Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc.
In a trademark infringement action by Starbucks Corp. regarding a competitor's use of the name "Charbucks," judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Charbucks Marks were minimally similar to the Starbucks Marks; 2) the Charbucks line of coffee was marketed as a product of very high quality ? as Starbucks also purported its coffee to be ? which was inconsistent with the concept of tarnishment. However, the judgment is vacated in part where the district court needed to conduct further proceedings on the issue of whether Starbucks demonstrated a likelihood of dilution by "blurring" under federal trademark law.
More...
|
