Trade Dress
[12/01] Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC
In plaintiff's suit against defendant for infringement of jewelry designs, trademarks and copyrights, trial court's decision denying plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute is affirmed as the filing of a lawsuit in a foreign country is not protected activity under the United States or California Constitutions as to implicate the statute.
[09/16] Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Ent'mt. Inc.
In a copyright, trademark, and trade dress infringement action, judgment as a matter of law for defendant on copyright and trade dress infringement claims is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not timely move for judgment as a matter of law, but the time limit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) is not jurisdictional; and 2) plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant had access to plaintiff's copyrighted works or that plaintiff's trade dress had acquired secondary meaning.
More...
Intellectual Property
[03/11] Delaware Valley Floral Group, Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC
In plaintiffs' suit seeking declaratory relief against the inventor and owner of a patent relating to a process that produces larger rose heads by placing elastic, porous nets over the rose heads during the growing process, district court's grant of summary judgment pursuant to the on-sale bar under section 102(b) is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact surrounding the dates of conception or commercial sales; 2) defendant failed to dispute that the invention was ready for patenting; and 3) defendant failed to show that the district court erred in disregarding the evidence presented in its motion for reconsideration.
[03/11] Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Metabolite Labs., Inc.
In an action for a declaratory judgment that plaintiff did not breach a license agreement for failure to pay know-how royalties on homocysteine assays performed after judgment had been entered in a prior patent infringement and breach of contract action, defendant's appeal from summary judgment for plaintiff is transferred to the Tenth Circuit as: 1) the present cause of action does not arise under federal patent law nor does defendant's right to relief necessarily depend on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, and thus, this court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal; and 2) this action is a state law contract dispute over know-how royalties brought pursuant to the district court's diversity jurisdiction.
More...
Sanctions
[03/15] Qureshi v. US
In plaintiff's appeal from a sua sponte order of the district court requiring him to obtain the court's permission before filing suit in any federal court in the state of Texas, the order is vacated where the district court entered the injunction without giving any prior notice to plaintiff and without offering him any opportunity to oppose the injunction or be heard on its merits.
[02/24] Garcia-Perez v. Hosp. Metropolitano
Dismissal of the case by the district court, acting sua sponte, for lack of prosecution based on plaintiffs' non-compliance with discovery deadlines is vacated and remanded where the absence of a clearly communicated deadline for providing expert reports, or notice that failing to do so more promptly could result in dismissal, rendered that drastic sanction an abuse of discretion.
More...
Judges & Judiciary
[06/30] ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASS'N, INC. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY
The Court denied plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate to disclose records relating to reimbursement of travel expenses for judges and management employees of the Court pursuant to the California Public Records Act, because the Act did not apply to the requested disclosure.
[06/28] US v. PARKER
Evidence seized under a warrant issued by a trial commissioner who was also an administrative assistant at the county jail was properly excluded, because the commissioner was not a neutral and detached party.
More...
Contracts
[03/17] Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
In an action seeking car rental costs from an insurer arising out of an auto accident, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where, under California law, an insurer is permitted to recoup a payout from a third-party tortfeasor's insurance company before the insured has sued the third-party tortfeasor, and without first making the insured whole.
[03/17] Buck v. Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch.
In plaintiff's lawsuit against her former law school claiming violation of the ADA and breach of various implied contracts, arising from her dismissal from the law school for falling below the required minimum G.P.A. of 2.0, dismissal of the lawsuit is affirmed where plaintiff is precluded by res judicata from raising the claims at issue as she should have supplemented her complaint in state court with claims that arose during the pendency of that suit.
More...
Insurance Law
[03/17] Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
In an action seeking car rental costs from an insurer arising out of an auto accident, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where, under California law, an insurer is permitted to recoup a payout from a third-party tortfeasor's insurance company before the insured has sued the third-party tortfeasor, and without first making the insured whole.
[03/16] Pendergest-Holt v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
In an action by various insureds, including R. Allen Stanford, each faced with civil and criminal allegations that they engaged in a massive Ponzi scheme, seeking reimbursement of defense costs under a directors' and officers' liability policy from the policy's underwriters, an injunction prohibiting defendant-insurers from withholding defense funds is affirmed with modifications and remanded, and the underwriters are enjoined from refusing to advance defense costs as provided for in the D&O Policy unless and until a court "determine[s] in fact" by clear and convincing evidence "that the alleged act or alleged acts [of Money Laundering] did in fact occur."
More...
Corporation & Enterprise Law
[03/15] Service Employees Int'l Union v. Nat'l Union of Healthcare Workers
In an action by a parent and local affiliate union seeking injunctive relief to obtain restoration of properties it alleged were illegally taken by the former officers and leaders of the local union, who formed a rival union, the district court's grant of a temporary restraining order (TRO) is affirmed where: 1) the TRO was an appealable order and thus the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review it; 2) in its subsequent preliminary injunction, the district court explicitly preserved a portion of the TRO as still effective after issuance of the injunction, so the appeal was not moot; and 3) the district court's jurisdiction was proper under 29 U.S.C. section 185(a) because providing a federal forum for injunctive relief against the former officers and leaders of the union promoted the stability of the parent-local relationship and the representation of rank-and-file members.
[03/15] Grothenhuis v. County of Santa Barbara
Following a county's denial of trustee-plaintiff's appeal for an assessment reduction and tax refund, the trial court's tax refund judgment in favor of the trustee is reversed as the corporate alter ego theory, which is generally used to prevent a fraud and impute liability, like "only in narrowly defined circumstances and only when the ends of justice so require," and here, plaintiff cites no authority that the corporate alter ego theory may be invoked to gain a tax advantage in violation of section 69.5.
More...
Judgment Enforcement
[03/04] Tivo Inc. v. Echostar Corp.
In a patent infringement action against EchoStar, relating to the software component of plaintiff's patent that allows television users to simultaneously record and play broadcasts using what is commonly known as a digital video recorder (DVR), district court's decision finding defendants in contempt of a permanent injunction is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decision to hold contempt proceedings; 2) there was clear and convincing evidence before the district court to find that both types of EchoStar receivers continue to infringe and that it was not an abuse of discretion for the ocurt to find EchoStar in contempt of the infringement provision; and 3) given defendant's refusal to disable the DVR functionality in its existing devices and the fact that its original attempts to design around TiVo's patent were wholly unsuccessful, the district court had ample justification for its determination that court pre-approval of any new design-around effort was necessary to prevent future infringing activity.
[02/26] Office Depot Inc. v. Zuccarini
In a judgment debtor's appeal from an order appointing a receiver to take control of and auction off some of debtor's domain names in order to satisfy the judgment, the order is affirmed where: 1) Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003), was still an accurate statement of California law, and domain names are intangible property subject to a writ of execution; and 2) domain names were personal property located wherever the registry or the registrar were located.
More...
ERISA
[03/16] Schexnayder v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.
In an ERISA action claiming that defendant-insurer wrongly denied plaintiff disability benefits, summary judgment on the merits for plaintiff is affirmed where defendant's decision was procedurally unreasonable because the Social Security Administration (SSA) determined that plaintiff was fully disabled and unable to perform any work, but defendant did not address the SSA award in any of its denial letters. However, the district court's order granting plaintiff attorney's fees is reversed where the legal questions in this case were much closer than the district court credited, and the district court therefore abused its discretion in assessing attorneys' fees against defendant.
[03/10] Darvell v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
In an ERISA action regarding defendant-insurer's denial of long-term disability benefits to plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) it was not an abuse of an ERISA plan administrator's discretion to ignore an opinion when the physician did not provide reliable objective evidence of testing or other proof to support a finding of long term disability; and 2) the plan administrator did not abuse its discretion by using the DOT description of plaintiff's occupation, rather than a description of his actual job duties.
More...
Civil Procedure
[03/17] Holmes v. Kimco Realty Corp.
In plaintiff's negligence suit against a retailer for injuries he sustained when he fell on ice/snow in the parking lot, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as the state of New Jersey would not impose a duty on an individual tenant for snow removal from the common areas of a multi-tenant parking lot when the landlord has retained and exercised that responsibility.
[03/16] McBride v. CSX Transp. Inc.
In plaintiff's action under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA) seeking compensation for injuries he sustained while performing switching operations for his employer, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) common law proximate causation is not required to establish liability under the FELA; and 2) district court did not commit instructional error refusing defendant's proffered instruction and giving the causation instruction to the jury instead as it correctly and completely informed the jury of the applicable law.
More...
Attorney's Fees
[03/16] Schexnayder v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.
In an ERISA action claiming that defendant-insurer wrongly denied plaintiff disability benefits, summary judgment on the merits for plaintiff is affirmed where defendant's decision was procedurally unreasonable because the Social Security Administration (SSA) determined that plaintiff was fully disabled and unable to perform any work, but defendant did not address the SSA award in any of its denial letters. However, the district court's order granting plaintiff attorney's fees is reversed where the legal questions in this case were much closer than the district court credited, and the district court therefore abused its discretion in assessing attorneys' fees against defendant.
[03/16] Quigley v. Winter
In a sexual harassment action against plaintiff's landlord under the Fair Housing Act, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) defendant could not show "a complete absence of probative facts" supporting the jury's verdict and that no reasonable jury could have found in plaintiff's favor; 2) the jury could reasonably infer that defendant was telling plaintiff the return of her deposit was conditioned upon defendant seeing more of plaintiff's body or even receiving a sexual favor; and 3) even if the admission of evidence regarding a government investigation of defendant was an error, any possible prejudice was cured by the district court's instruction. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the district court erred in the degree to which it reduced the jury's punitive damage award failed to conduct a proper analysis of plaintiff's entitlement to attorney fees.
More...
Evidence
[03/16] Schexnayder v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.
In an ERISA action claiming that defendant-insurer wrongly denied plaintiff disability benefits, summary judgment on the merits for plaintiff is affirmed where defendant's decision was procedurally unreasonable because the Social Security Administration (SSA) determined that plaintiff was fully disabled and unable to perform any work, but defendant did not address the SSA award in any of its denial letters. However, the district court's order granting plaintiff attorney's fees is reversed where the legal questions in this case were much closer than the district court credited, and the district court therefore abused its discretion in assessing attorneys' fees against defendant.
[03/16] Smith v. McKee
In a petition for habeas relief from first-degree murder and attempted robbery convictions, district court's denial of relief is affirmed where: 1) defendant's ineffective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel claims were procedurally defaulted as he failed to show adequate cause and prejudice; 2) defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation claim has been procedurally defaulted as defendant has not shown cause and prejudice to warrant setting aside the forfeiture; and 3) defendant's claim that he has put forth new evidence of his actual innocence and that to deny his petition would result in miscarriage of justice is rejected as affidavits of two witnesses do not warrant the application of the miscarriage of justice exception.
More...
Dispute Resolution & Arbitration
[03/10] Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd.
In an appeal from a district court's order granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoining defendant from proceeding with an arbitration initiated against plaintiff before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the order is affirmed where the "serious questions" standard for assessing a movant's likelihood of success on the merits remains valid in the wake of recent Supreme Court cases, and neither the district court's assessment of the facts nor its application of the law supported a finding of abuse of discretion.
[03/09] Kuhn Constr. Co. v. Diamond State Port Corp.
In an action to enjoin an arbitration initiated by defendant based on a referee clause in the agreement between the parties, grant of defendant's motions to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration is reversed where the referee clause, on these facts, did not clearly require arbitration.
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.
More...
Commercial Law
[03/15] Kim v. Carter's Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against a children's clothing retailer for damages under Illinois contract and consumer protection law, claiming they were victims of deceptive pricing, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, defendant has fulfilled its obligations under the straightforward, everyday sales contract described in the complaint; and 2) plaintiffs' allegations fail to establish the actual damages element of their Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA) claim.
[03/11] Coyote Publishing, Inc. v. Miller
In a facial First Amendment challenge to restrictions on advertising by legal brothels, summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where the advertising restrictions targeted pure commercial speech, and there were strong reasons why the sale of sexual services, in particular, ought to be treated differently than other advertising bans on "vice" activities.
More...
Trade Secrets
[02/12] Ansys, Inc. v. Computational Dynamics N. Am., Ltd.
In plaintiff's suit against its former employee and his new employer (a competitor) claiming breach of noncompetition and confidentiality clauses in the employee's employment contract, interference with contractual relations, misappropriation of trade secrets, and unfair trade practices, denial of plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction to enforce the provisions of a one-year noncompetition clause in the employment agreement is affirmed as the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that plaintiff has failed to make a showing of likelihood of success on the breach of contract claim, or a likelihood of irreparable injury.
[12/29] Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiff's action under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act claiming that the defendants misappropriated certain trade secrets belonging to plaintiff, trial court's dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had forfeited its standing to maintain an action for misappropriation when it had gone through bankruptcy proceedings shortly after filing the complaint is reversed where: 1) a current ownership requirement is not supported by general principles of property or tort law; 2) existing authority imposes no "current ownership requirement" on trade secret plaintiffs; 3) adoption of a current ownership requirement in trade secrets cases is not warranted by analogy to trademark, patent, or copyright law; and 4) no policy concern preponderates in favor of current ownership requirement.
More...
Environmental Law
[03/15] Communities for a Better Env't v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.
In plaintiffs' suit against ConocoPhillips and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (District), for failing to prepare an EIR before approving a refinery project, judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as neither the statute of limitations, nor principles of vested rights, nor the CEQA case law on which ConocoPhillips and the District rely, justified employing as an analytical baseline for a new project the maximum capacity allowed under prior equipment permits, rather than the physical conditions actually existing at the time of analysis. Therefore, the District abused its discretion in determining the project at issue would have no significant environmental effects compared to a baseline of maximum permitted capacity.
[03/10] Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist. v. American Int'l Specilaty Lines Ins. Co.
In a sewerage district's suit for damages against an environmental liability insurer for denying coverage for costs incurred by the district in removing significant pollution on land it recently purchased, district court's judgment is reversed and remanded as the district court's finding that there was clear and convincing proof that a prior agreement existed between the insurance company and the sewerage district that the parcel would be covered property was clearly erroneous. Therefore, defendant is entitled to judgment on the sewerage district's reformation claim and, as a consequence, judgment in favor of defendant on its indemnity claim is vacated.
More...
