Trade Dress
[06/03] Amazing Spaces, Inc. v. Metro Mini Storage
In an action alleging infringement of a star design that plaintiff claimed as a service mark, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) the record evidence was replete with similar or identical five-pointed stars, both raised and set in circles, and used in similar manners, such that -- notwithstanding the residual evidence of the presumption of validity -- no reasonable jury could find that the star symbol was even a mere refinement of this commonly adopted and well-known form of ornamentation; and 2) plaintiff failed to raise a fact issue regarding the existence of secondary meaning with respect to the symbol. However, the judgment is reversed in part where plaintiff had not yet had the opportunity to introduce evidence relating to its trade dress claims.
[05/06] Shell Co. (Puerto Rico) Ltd. v. Los Frailes Serv. Station, Inc.
In Shell's suit against a former franchisee under the Petroleum Practices Marketing Act, district court's grant of Shell's motion for permanent injunction is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's grant of a permanent injunction ordering an defendant to cease any use of Shell trademarks, trade dress, or color patterns, and to comply with the post-termination provisions of its franchise agreements with Shell are affirmed; 2) the portion of the injunction ordering and compelling defendant to allow Shell to continue in possession of the service station until the expiration of the lease in 2014 is vacated as Shell made no showing of irreparable harm that might justify an order giving it possession of the property for the full term of the lease; and 3) Shell's motion for summary judgment on defendant's antitrust counterclaims was properly granted.
Intellectual Property
[06/28] Bilski v. Kappos
In a patent application seeking protection for a claimed invention explaining how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market could protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. section 101; 2) Section 101 precluded a reading of the term "process" that would categorically exclude business methods; and 3) even though petitioners' application was not categorically outside of section 101 under the two atextual approaches the Court rejected today, that did not mean it was a "process" under section 101.
[06/23] Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins., Co. v. Transamerica Life Ins., Co.
In a suit for patent infringement, related to computerized methods for administering variable annuity plans, district court's denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment as a matter of law that it does not infringe the claims at issue of the '201 patent is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in denying defendants' motion for JMOL of noninfringement as the evidence on the record does not support jury's verdict of infringement; and 2) because defendant did not infringe, its argument that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant it leave to amend its complaint to assert a claim for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. section 101 need not be addressed.
Sanctions
[06/25] Claiborne-Hughes Health Ctr. v. Sebelius
The Appellate Division of the Departmental Appeals Board's (DAB) affirmance of the United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' imposition of a civil money penalty upon, as well as a denial of payment for new admissions for, a skilled nursing facility, due to noncompliance with a number of standards of care required by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is affirmed where: 1) it was clear that the facility failed to achieve substantial compliance with 42 C.F.R. section 483.10(b)(11) as the DAB correctly noted that a sharp decline in food intake persisting for over three weeks should have brought a resident's significant change in status to the facility's attention; 2) DAB's immediate jeopardy determination was not in clear error; 3) substantial evidence existed in the record as a whole to demonstrate that the facility had failed to substantially comply with the requirement that it provide each resident with sufficient fluid intake to maintain proper hydration and health under section 483.25(j); and 4) the ALJ was free not to continue making additional rulings once he determined that the deficiencies concerning the two residents sufficed to support imposition of sanctions.
[06/15] Soria v. Soria
In an appeal from the trial court's award of attorneys' fees on the ground that a trustee contested the claim by a beneficiary of the trust in bad faith, the order is reversed where Probate Code section 17211(b) did not permit recovery of attorney fees for the simple reason that the claimants did not contest a trustee's account.
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.
Contracts
[06/25] Greenspan v. LADT, LLC
In a trust's suit for breach of contract and other claims against two affiliated companies and individuals, trial court's confirmation of an arbitrator's award against defendants in the amount of $6.34 million is affirmed where: 1) per the JAMS rules, the arbitrator, not a court, determines what issues are arbitrable, and here, the arbitrator determined that the issue of joint and several liability was arbitrable; 2) arbitrator's finding of joint and several liability was rationally related to the parties' contract; 3) as to the timeliness of the final award under JAMS rules, the arbitrator's interpretation and application of the rules cannot be judicially reviewed on the merits; and 4) the suit against the arbitrator was barred by arbitral immunity and would not have caused a reasonable person to doubt the arbitrator's impartiality.
[06/25] Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins., Co. v. Bezich
A petition for permission to appeal, arising from the district court's remand of plaintiff's class action lawsuit against an insurer for breach of contract claims on the basis that CAFA's exception to federal jurisdiction for the action applied, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiff's claim "related to the rights, duties,...and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to...a security," as defined in the Securities Act of 1933.
Insurance Law
[06/24] Durakovic v. Bldg. Serv. 32 BJ Pension Fund
In an ERISA challenge to a union disability-benefits denial, dismissal of the complaint is reversed where: 1) a fund organized pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 186(c)(5) is conflicted within the meaning of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008); 2) the district court should have accorded the conflict in this case more weight; and 3) no rational trier of fact could have failed to conclude that the benefits denial was arbitrary and capricious.
[06/23] Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co.
In an appeal from the district court's order granting respondent's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) motion based on newly discovered evidence that an arbitrator who had resigned was, in fact, able to rejoin the arbitration panel prior to the district court's decision on whether to convene a new panel or order a replacement arbitrator, the order is affirmed where: 1) the rule articulated in Marine Products Export Corp. v. M.T. Globe Galaxy, 977 F.2d 66 (2d Cir. 1992) ? that, absent "special circumstances," if a vacancy arises on an arbitral panel due to the death of an arbitrator prior to the rendering of an award, a new panel should be convened ? does not apply to a vacancy occasioned by a resignation; and 2) in the instant case, the district court's decision either to reappoint the arbitrator who had resigned, or, in the alternative, to direct petitioner to appoint a replacement was proper pursuant to 9 U.S.C. section 5.
Corporation & Enterprise Law
[06/25] Deutscher Tennis Bund GMBH v. ATP Tour, Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against the ATP Tour, an organizer of worldwide men's professional tennis circuit, claiming that the ATP Tour's reorganization to revitalize its popularity violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and constituted a breach of the directors' fiduciary duties, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) the jury verdict on the Sherman Act section 1 claim is affirmed as the plaintiffs failed to prove the relevant market; and 2) district court's judgment as a matter of law dismissing the breach of duty of loyalty claim against a director is affirmed as neither he individually, nor the ATP Board of Directors as a whole, were materially self-interested when they voted in favor of the reorganization plan.
[06/24] Olmstead v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
An order to partially satisfy a judgment against defendant in the FTC's suit for unfair or deceptive trade practices is affirmed as Florida law permits a court to order a judgment debtor to surrender all right, title, and interest in the debtor's single-member limited liability company to satisfy an outstanding judgment.
Judgment Enforcement
[06/23] In re McKinney
An appeal by a tax debt owner in Chapter 13 proceedings, arising from the bankruptcy court's denial of its objections to the debtor's proposed plan to pay off the tax debt with interest within five years, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as, although the issue that the tax debt owner cares about may have been resolved, its basic dispute with the bankruptcy estate has not been resolved and therefore the judgment of the bankruptcy court is not final.
[06/22] Export-Import Bank of the U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co.
In an action to collect a $144 million judgment against defendants pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA), the district court's order quashing plaintiff's writs of garnishment is affirmed where an electronic funds transfer (EFT) temporarily in the possession of an intermediary bank in New York may not be garnished under the FDCPA to satisfy judgment debts owed by the originator or intended beneficiary of that EFT.
ERISA
[06/24] Edwards v. A.H. Cornell & Son, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her employers and supervisors, claiming that she was terminated in violation of section 510 of ERISA and state common law after complaining to management about alleged ERISA violations, district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss is affirmed as unsolicited internal complaints are not protected activities under the anti-retaliation provision of section 510 of ERISA.
[06/24] Durakovic v. Bldg. Serv. 32 BJ Pension Fund
In an ERISA challenge to a union disability-benefits denial, dismissal of the complaint is reversed where: 1) a fund organized pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 186(c)(5) is conflicted within the meaning of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008); 2) the district court should have accorded the conflict in this case more weight; and 3) no rational trier of fact could have failed to conclude that the benefits denial was arbitrary and capricious.
Civil Procedure
[06/25] Greenspan v. LADT, LLC
In a trust's suit for breach of contract and other claims against two affiliated companies and individuals, trial court's confirmation of an arbitrator's award against defendants in the amount of $6.34 million is affirmed where: 1) per the JAMS rules, the arbitrator, not a court, determines what issues are arbitrable, and here, the arbitrator determined that the issue of joint and several liability was arbitrable; 2) arbitrator's finding of joint and several liability was rationally related to the parties' contract; 3) as to the timeliness of the final award under JAMS rules, the arbitrator's interpretation and application of the rules cannot be judicially reviewed on the merits; and 4) the suit against the arbitrator was barred by arbitral immunity and would not have caused a reasonable person to doubt the arbitrator's impartiality.
[06/25] Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins., Co. v. Bezich
A petition for permission to appeal, arising from the district court's remand of plaintiff's class action lawsuit against an insurer for breach of contract claims on the basis that CAFA's exception to federal jurisdiction for the action applied, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiff's claim "related to the rights, duties,...and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to...a security," as defined in the Securities Act of 1933.
Attorney's Fees
[06/25] Rice v. Astrue
In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's order requiring her attorney to remit a portion of her Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) award if she won attorney's fees at the administrative level, the order is reversed where a federal court may not condition the amount of its EAJA award of attorney's fees on a future grant of attorney's fees by the Commissioner of Social Security.
[06/25] Kimbrough v. State of Cal.
In an action claiming that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR) grooming regulations concerning hair length interfered with plaintiff's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, the district court's award of attorney's fees to plaintiff is reversed where, because the district court did not actually adjudicate plaintiff's claims, the Ninth Circuit's decision in Siripongs foreclosed an award of attorneys' fees in this case.
Evidence
[06/25] People v. Bloom
Conviction of defendant for resisting arrest and other related charges, arising from making more than 40 harassing calls to 911 in a single evening, is affirmed over a challenge to a denial of a motion to suppress as a dispatcher lawfully arrested defendant for making the calls and she was not required to physically restrain him or to be present at the time of the arrest.
[06/25] Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr.
In plaintiff's Title VII suit against her former employer for being fired in retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment by residents of defendant's nursing home, district court's denial of defendant's motions for a new trial and remittitur are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff presented enough evidence to persuade a reasonable jury that her complaints caused defendant to fire her; 2) it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for a new trial on the basis of plaintiff's counsel's closing arguments; 3) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the compensatory damages as enough evidence supported a jury award of $25,000, which is well within the $200,000 cap set out in 42 U.S.C. section 1981a(b)(3)(C); and 4) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the punitive damage award and the logic of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008) does not apply to this Title VII case.
Dispute Resolution & Arbitration
[06/25] Greenspan v. LADT, LLC
In a trust's suit for breach of contract and other claims against two affiliated companies and individuals, trial court's confirmation of an arbitrator's award against defendants in the amount of $6.34 million is affirmed where: 1) per the JAMS rules, the arbitrator, not a court, determines what issues are arbitrable, and here, the arbitrator determined that the issue of joint and several liability was arbitrable; 2) arbitrator's finding of joint and several liability was rationally related to the parties' contract; 3) as to the timeliness of the final award under JAMS rules, the arbitrator's interpretation and application of the rules cannot be judicially reviewed on the merits; and 4) the suit against the arbitrator was barred by arbitral immunity and would not have caused a reasonable person to doubt the arbitrator's impartiality.
[06/24] Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l. Brotherhood of Teamsters
In an action against a labor union by an employer, invoking federal jurisdiction under section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), seeking strike-related damages for the unions' alleged breach of contract, and asking for an injunction against an ongoing strike because the hold-harmless dispute was an arbitrable grievance under the new collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the Ninth Circuit's partial affirmance of the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's tortious interference claims and denying defendant's separate motion to send the parties' dispute over the CBA's ratification date to arbitration is affirmed in part where the Ninth Circuit did not err in declining to recognize a new federal common-law cause of action under LMRA section 301(a) for defendant's alleged tortious interference with the CBA. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the parties' dispute over the CBA's ratification date was a matter for the district court, not an arbitrator, to resolve.
Trademark
[06/03] Amazing Spaces, Inc. v. Metro Mini Storage
In an action alleging infringement of a star design that plaintiff claimed as a service mark, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) the record evidence was replete with similar or identical five-pointed stars, both raised and set in circles, and used in similar manners, such that -- notwithstanding the residual evidence of the presumption of validity -- no reasonable jury could find that the star symbol was even a mere refinement of this commonly adopted and well-known form of ornamentation; and 2) plaintiff failed to raise a fact issue regarding the existence of secondary meaning with respect to the symbol. However, the judgment is reversed in part where plaintiff had not yet had the opportunity to introduce evidence relating to its trade dress claims.
[05/26] Deere & Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
The judgment of the International Trade Commission finding that the sales of European version self-propelled John Deere forage harvesters in the U.S. by intervenors did not violate section 337 of the Tariff Act is vacated and remanded as, although the Commission's determination that the sales of the European-version harvesters in the U.S. by official Deere dealers were authorized is supported by substantial evidence, the Commission improperly applied the "all or substantially all" test.
Commercial Law
[06/28] Bilski v. Kappos
In a patent application seeking protection for a claimed invention explaining how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market could protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. section 101; 2) Section 101 precluded a reading of the term "process" that would categorically exclude business methods; and 3) even though petitioners' application was not categorically outside of section 101 under the two atextual approaches the Court rejected today, that did not mean it was a "process" under section 101.
[06/25] Rathborne Land Co. v. Ascent Engy., Inc.
In an action for breach of defendant's obligations to reasonably develop and explore a leased parcel of oil, gas, and mineral land, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff's letter to defendant met the La. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 31:136 demand requirement; and 2) district court did not clearly err in concluding that plaintiff would have been able to lease the disputed acreage more than once if it had been able to seismically survey the parcel prior to 2006. However, the judgment is vacated in part where neither the district court nor plaintiff could show an adequate ground -- indeed, any relevant precedent -- for awarding consequential damages for lost leasing and seismic revenues on the entire parcel.
Trade Secrets
[05/19] R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC
In a copyright and trade secret infringement suit brought by a provider of credit union software against the developer of a competing credit union software, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its broad discretion in refusing to compel additional discovery and plaintiff can point to no errors of fact or law in the court's denial of its employees access to defendant's software; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in barring the use of an expert's report because the report failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 26(a)(2)(B); 3) plaintiff was not entitled to take the deposition of defendant's expert witness because defendant designated him as a non-testifying expert; 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose a sanction on defendant because plaintiff was not left without a remedy for any harm caused by the third party's spoliation; 5) defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the merits on the copyright infringement claims because plaintiff has not produced any direct evidence of copying and indirect evidence of copying was not sufficient to create a fact question as to whether copying occurred; and 6) district court correctly held that plaintiff's end user product was not a trade secret because plaintiff did not take reasonable steps to maintain its secrecy.
[05/11] Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mortensen
In an action arising out of the retention of policyholder information by former insurance agents for plaintiff, summary judgment dismissing both plaintiff's claims and defendants' counterclaims is affirmed where: 1) the policyholder information was readily available from another source, and thus did not qualify as a trade secret as a matter of law; 2) plaintiff effectively abandoned its breach of fiduciary duty claim on appeal because it failed to challenge the district court's determination that it could not prove damages on that claim; 3) the agents did not qualify as employees covered by ERISA as a matter of law; and 4) the agents pointed to no evidence showing that plaintiff's allegedly unfair trade practices resulted in an ascertainable loss.
Environmental Law
[06/21] Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms
In an action challenging the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) decision to approve the unconditional deregulation of Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA), a variety of alfalfa genetically engineered to tolerate the herbicide Roundup, the Ninth Circuit's affirmance of judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) plaintiffs had standing to seek injunctive relief, and defendants had standing to seek the Court's review of the Ninth Circuit's judgment affirming the entry of such relief; and 2) the district court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the planting of RRA pending the agency's completion of its detailed environmental review.
[06/17] Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC
In a suit brought by fishermen against a defendant for negligently spilling pollutants and hazardous contaminants into a pond, the judgment of the Second District is quashed as commercial fishermen have both a statutory and common law cause of action for economic losses proximately caused by the negligent release of pollutants despite the fact that the fishermen do not own any property damages by the pollution.
Contact the civil and business litigation attorneys of Weiss & Hiller, PC.
Weiss & Hiller, PC
600 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Toll Free: (888) 402-0668
Phone: (212) 319-4000
Fax: (212) 753-4530
