Trade Dress
[11/25] Bd. of Supervisors for La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Smack Apparel Co.
In a trademark dispute alleging that defendant infringed trademarks by selling t-shirts with several universities' color schemes and other identifying indicia referencing the games of the schools' football teams, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the color schemes had secondary meaning and, although unregistered, were protectible marks; 2) there was a likelihood of confusion connecting the marks and the universities themselves; 3) the marks at issue were nonfunctional and thus subject to Lanham Act protection; 4) defendants' use of the marks was not a nominative fair use; 5) the defense of laches did not apply; 6) actual confusion was not a prerequisite to an award of money damages; and 7) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys' fees. (Revised opinion)
[11/25] Bd. of Supervisors for La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Smack Apparel Co.
In a trademark dispute alleging that defendant infringed trademarks by selling t-shirts with several universities' color schemes and other identifying indicia referencing the games of the schools' football teams, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the color schemes had secondary meaning and, although unregistered, were protectible marks; 2) there was a likelihood of confusion connecting the marks and the universities themselves; 3) the marks at issue were nonfunctional and thus subject to Lanham Act protection; 4) defendants' use of the marks was not a nominative fair use; 5) the defense of laches did not apply; 6) actual confusion was not a prerequisite to an award of money damages; and 7) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys' fees.
More...
Intellectual Property
[12/30] Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.
District court did not abuse its discretion in permanently enjoining defendant from selling its product after jury found willful infringement of plaintiff's valid patent. The court correctly applied the four-factor test for permanent injunctive relief, finding that: 1) plaintiff has suffered irreparable injury; 2) remedies at law were inadequate; 3) balance of hardships warranted issuance of injunctive relief; and 4) the public interest was not harmed by issuance of the permanent injunction, despite defendant's assertion that its infringing product was safer than plaintiff's product.
[12/29] In re TS Tech USA Corp.
In a patent infringement action relating to pivotally attached vehicle headrest assemblies, petition for writ of mandamus to vacate decision denying petitioner's motion to transfer venue and to direct district court to transfer case to another state is granted where: 1) petitioner met its difficult burden of establishing that the district court clearly abused its discretion in denying transfer of venue to the Southern District of Ohio; and 2) mandamus relief was appropriate.
More...
Sanctions
[12/19] Ford v. Pryor
Orders denying plaintiff relief relating to the attempts of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to assess and collect income taxes from plaintiff are affirmed over plaintiff's meritless claims. Also, the court finds that both of plaintiff's appeals were frivolous, bordering on vexatious, and brought to delay and obstruct, and consequently imposes monetary sanctions and filing restrictions on plaintiff.
[12/10] New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
In an action for negligence and premises liability for injury sustained while shopping at a supermarket owned by petitioner, denial of motion to withdraw an admission and grant of motion for sanctions is vacated where: 1) any doubts in ruling on a motion to withdraw or amend an admission must be resolved in favor of the moving party; 2) the record did not clearly establish that petitioner's mistake in admitting a photograph was inexcusable or show that the withdrawal of the admission would have substantially prejudiced plaintiffs; 3) the policy in favor of trial on the merits compelled a conclusion that the motion should have been granted; 4) the court had no statutory authority to impose sanctions absent a failure to obey an order compelling discovery and the court's inherent powers to control the litigation did not justify the sanctions in these circumstances.
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
[12/31] Conner Bros. Constr. Co. v. Geren
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals correctly denied contractor's claim for delay damages caused when Army denied access to construction site for 41 days following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, because the sovereign acts doctrine shielded the Army from any liability for its decision to deny access to the construction site for security purposes while Army Rangers prepared for deployment.
[12/31] Holmes v. Potter
Reduction in former postal employee's annuity was not a breach of the settlement agreement arising from his Rehabilitation Act claim, because although that agreement did set his retirement date: 1) the agreement did not discuss the amount of money he would be paid during retirement or how that retirement pay would be computed; and 2) the agreement was unambiguous, and therefore the mediator's statements to the plaintiff were inadmissible.
More...
Insurance Law
[12/30] Food Pro Int'l, Inc. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
In connection to a tort claim brought by an injured construction worker against plaintiff, judgment in favor of defendant-insurer in plaintiff-insuree's claim for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is reversed where: 1) there was no merit to plaintiff's punitive damages argument; but 2) the trial court erred in finding that defendant-insurer had no duty to defend plaintiff.
[12/29] Sanders v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am.
Insurance company correctly deducted claimant's social security disability payments from the amount owed him under long-term disability insurance. Although his SSDI payments arose from his inability to work due to mental illness, while his long-term disability payments arose from his inability to work due to physical impairments, his inability to work constituted a single disability with both mental and physical causes.
More...
Corporation & Enterprise Law
[12/29] Abbotts v. Campbell
Participants in a Common Stock Purchase Agreement failed to show that the nondisclosure of a waiver of certain provisions of that Agreement was a proximate cause of their investment losses. The investors also failed to show that they exercised reasonable diligence warranting equitable tolling of the six-year statute of limitations specified by Minnesota Statute section 541.05.
[12/29] People v. Roscoe
Following judgment finding defendants jointly and severally liable for penalties pursuant to laws governing underground storage of hazardous substances, judgment against defendant is affirmed where the responsible corporate officer doctrine applies to Health and Safety Code section 25299(a)(6) of the tank laws and thus subjects to liability as an "operator" a corporate officer who had "a responsible share in the furtherance of the transaction which the statute outlaws", even where the corporation itself was also found to be the operator.
More...
Judgment Enforcement
[12/31] Eastern Seaboard Constr., Inc. v. Gray Constr., Inc.
In an arbitration to resolve dispute between defendant-contractor and plaintiff-construction company, decision vacating amended arbitration award and denying plaintiff prejudgment interest on its award is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where the arbitrator's omission of the $66,613.89 contract balance in the initial award, rather than a redetermination of the merits, was the type of "clerical, typographical, technical or computational error[]" which AAA Rule 47 permitted him to amend or clarify.
[12/30] Food Pro Int'l, Inc. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
In connection to a tort claim brought by an injured construction worker against plaintiff, judgment in favor of defendant-insurer in plaintiff-insuree's claim for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is reversed where: 1) there was no merit to plaintiff's punitive damages argument; but 2) the trial court erred in finding that defendant-insurer had no duty to defend plaintiff.
More...
ERISA
[12/24] McCauley v. First Unum Life Ins. Co.
In a challenge to defendent-insurer's denial of plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is reversed and remanded where: 1) in light of the Supreme Court decision in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan administrator abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's claim; 2) the administrator had a conflict of interest because it had both the discretionary authority to determine the validity of the employee's claim and paid the benefits under the policy; 3) a reasonable trier of fact would conclude that defendant-insurer's denial of long-term disability was arbitrary and capricious; and 4) plaintiff was entitled to benefits and interest running from September 18, 1995, the date on which defendant-insurer rejected plaintiff's appeal.
[12/16] Cole v. ArvinMeritor, Inc.
In an action under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and ERISA brought by retired employees and their union against Rockwell International Corporation and its successor companies to enforce what plaintiffs claimed was a promise by defendants to provide retirees and their surviving spouses with lifetime healthcare benefits, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where the district court correctly found that the applicable collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) contained such enforceable promises.
More...
Civil Procedure
[12/31] Emenaker v. Peake
Decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to deny veteran's request for benefits attributable to a service-connected disability stemming from a neurological disorder is affirmed because veteran failed to raise his present argument in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in the first instance, and had therefore failed to preserve the issue for appeal.
[12/31] US Motors v. Gen. Motors Europe
District court correctly dismissed this case, brought by domestic and foreign plaintiffs against a foreign defendant, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The presence of foreign parties on both sides of the dispute destroyed the complete diversity required by 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(2).
More...
Attorney's Fees
[12/31] In the Matter of: Owens
Bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing debtor's bad-faith Chapter 11 case rather than converting it to Chapter 7. When deciding between dismissal and conversion under 11 U.S.C. section 1112(b), the court must consider the interests of all the creditors; here, the other creditors would fare worse under Chapter 7 because the accompanying discharge would deny them access to debtor's future income.
[12/30] Chinese Yellow Pages Co. v. Chinese Overseas Mktg. Svc. Corp.
Denial of request for postjudgment fees and costs incurred in a bankruptcy proceeding brought by defendant and judgment debtor is reversed where: 1) Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040 can extend to reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and costs incurred in postjudgment bankruptcy proceedings under the circumstances of the present case; and 2) because the trial court ruled it had no jurisdiction to award reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and costs, the case is reversed.
More...
Evidence
[12/31] US v. Hill
Conviction for bank robbery is affirmed where the district court committed harmless error in admitting evidence that defendant bought a luxury car shortly after the bank robbery. Defendant's challenge to the impartiality of his jury is also rejected because the court's method of questioning potential jurors was sufficient to assure that any prejudice would have been discovered and, in any event, defendant had failed to use all his peremptory challenges.
[12/31] US v. Vargas
Conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute is affirmed. District court did not err in allowing evidence of defendant's prior drug trafficking activities under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because it was relevant to show Defendant's knowledge and criminal intent, and the minimal risk of unfair prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of the evidence.
More...
Dispute Resolution & Arbitration
[12/31] Eastern Seaboard Constr., Inc. v. Gray Constr., Inc.
In an arbitration to resolve dispute between defendant-contractor and plaintiff-construction company, decision vacating amended arbitration award and denying plaintiff prejudgment interest on its award is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where the arbitrator's omission of the $66,613.89 contract balance in the initial award, rather than a redetermination of the merits, was the type of "clerical, typographical, technical or computational error[]" which AAA Rule 47 permitted him to amend or clarify.
[12/29] Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consolidated Investments
In a lawsuit arising out of an alleged hostile takeover attempt of a publicly traded company, dismissal of complaint is reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part where: 1) the district court erred in dismissing the claim against co-defendant for insufficient service of process when co-defendant had already waived that defense; 2) the district court's dismissal of one count is affirmed as plaintiff did not allege that defendants were beneficial owners of plaintiff's stock, thus such defendants were not part of a section 13(d)(3) group required to file a Schedule 13D form; 3) a fraud claim was not within the scope of an arbitration clause because the conduct of the South African defendants giving rise to the claim was not "reasonably foreseeable" in 1994 when the licensing agreement and arbitration provision were executed, and thus the dispute did not "arise" out of the agreement; and 4) even in light of the general federal policy in favor of private commercial dispute resolution, the parties' licensing agreement arbitration clause did not cover not cover the fraud claim.
More...
Trademark
[12/23] Visible Sys. Corp. v. Unisys Corp.
In a trademark infringement action for reverse confusion, permanent injunction prohibiting defendant-Unisys from using trademarks or services of plaintiffs and damages award of $250,000 to plaintiff are affirmed over claims that: 1) the trial judge erred in not granting plaintiff a jury trial under both the Lanham Act and the Seventh Amendment on plaintiff's claim for an accounting of defendant's profits; 2) the court erred in tailoring the injunction too narrowly and in denying plaintiff attorneys' fees; and 3) the evidence was insufficient to support both the jury's finding of infringement and the damages awarded.
[11/25] Bd. of Supervisors for La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Smack Apparel Co.
In a trademark dispute alleging that defendant infringed trademarks by selling t-shirts with several universities' color schemes and other identifying indicia referencing the games of the schools' football teams, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the color schemes had secondary meaning and, although unregistered, were protectible marks; 2) there was a likelihood of confusion connecting the marks and the universities themselves; 3) the marks at issue were nonfunctional and thus subject to Lanham Act protection; 4) defendants' use of the marks was not a nominative fair use; 5) the defense of laches did not apply; 6) actual confusion was not a prerequisite to an award of money damages; and 7) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys' fees. (Revised opinion)
More...
Commercial Law
[12/31] Gen. Store, Inc. v. Van Loan
Revocation of a federal firearms dealer license for willful violations of federal and state firearms laws is affirmed. A violation of the Gun Control Act requires a willful violation that is "a deliberate, knowing, or reckless violation of its requirements," and both of plaintiff's violations satisfied this standard.
[12/31] US Motors v. Gen. Motors Europe
District court correctly dismissed this case, brought by domestic and foreign plaintiffs against a foreign defendant, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The presence of foreign parties on both sides of the dispute destroyed the complete diversity required by 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(2).
More...
Trade Secrets
[12/19] In re: LimitNone, LLC
In an intellectual-property dispute involving Google and its "GoogleApps" in which the district court transferred the case to another district based on forum-selection clauses in some of the parties' contracts, petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order vacating the transfer order is denied where the district court did not act outside of its authority either in the manner of its consideration of the transfer request or in deciding the issue of venue prior to subject-matter jurisdiction.
[12/18] Russo v. Ballard Med. Prods.
In a suit brought by a medical device inventor against defendant-company claiming that the company misappropriated his trade secret and breached the parties' confidentiality agreement by incorporating certain of his innovations into one of its popular medical devices without his consent, a judgment and jury award for plaintiff is affirmed over claims: 1) by defendant primarily arguing that plaintiff's state law claims were preempted by federal patent law; and 2) by plaintiff arguing that the district court erred in declining to add post-verdict, pre-judgment interest to his award.
More...
Environmental Law
[12/29] People v. Roscoe
Following judgment finding defendants jointly and severally liable for penalties pursuant to laws governing underground storage of hazardous substances, judgment against defendant is affirmed where the responsible corporate officer doctrine applies to Health and Safety Code section 25299(a)(6) of the tank laws and thus subjects to liability as an "operator" a corporate officer who had "a responsible share in the furtherance of the transaction which the statute outlaws", even where the corporation itself was also found to be the operator.
[12/29] Freeman v. Blue Ridge Paper Prods., Inc.
The Class Action Fairness Act prevents plaintiffs from artificially structuring their suits to avoid federal jurisdiction. There is no colorable basis for dividing this suit into five separate water-pollution nuisance claims, each covering a successive six-month time period and seeking 4.9 million dollars in damages, other than to frustrate CAFA.
More...
