Legal News

Case Summaries

Trade Dress

[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.

[12/26] McNeil Nutritionals, Inc. v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC
In a trade dress infringement action brought by the marketer of the artificial sweetener Splenda against defendants, who package and distribute sucralose as store brands to a number of retail grocery chains, alleging their product packaging is confusingly similar to Splenda's, denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed in part, but reversed in part as to certain boxes and bags where plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the third element of trade dress infringement, as there was a likelihood of confusion between those products' trade dresses and the analogous Splenda trade dress.

[09/12] General Motors Corp. v. Urban Gorilla, LLC
In trademark dispute over steel "body kits" designed to make a truck look like a military-style vehicle, denial of plaintiff GM's motion for preliminary injunction is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that GM failed to make a strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits that the "body kits" infringe upon and dilute GM's trade dress rights in its Hummer line of vehicles.

Read More

Patent

[06/30] Fisher Tool Co., Inc. v. Gillet Outillage
Where Lanham Act and state tort claims are based on a defendant's representation that someone infringed his patent, a plaintiff must show that defendant's representation was made in bad faith. In a suit against a French company that makes hose clamp pliers and its lawyers, brought by plaintiffs who sold similar pliers in the U.S. and alleged antitrust violations and malicious prosecution in a prior patent suit brought by defendant, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to establish that defendant-maker did not act in good faith or that it did not provide its law firm with facts in its possession that it "knew or should have known would defeat" the lawsuit; 2) defendant-firm could reasonably conclude that defendant-maker's infringement case was "tenable"; 3) Lanham Act and state tort law claims failed as plaintiffs did not present any evidence that defendants drafted or forwarded certain letters in bad faith; and 4) antitrust claims were barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

[06/19] Scanner Technologies Corp. v. Icos Vision Sys. Corp.
In a patent infringement suit involving semiconductor technology and specifically processes to inspect certain electronic components, a judgment holding that the asserted patents were unenforceable, invalid for obviousness, and not infringed, as well as its inclusion of a provision rendering related patents unenforceable is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part where: 1) a false statement that succeeds in expanding the application of a petition to make special is material for purposes of assessing the issue of inequitable conduct; 2) the issue of intent to deceive the PTO is moot since the district court erred in its finding of materiality, and a determination that the patents are unenforceable for inequitable conduct is reversed; 3) thus, the court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees; 4) a patent claim would have been obvious in light of prior art and the knowledge of one skilled in the art; 5) there was no error in invalidating all claims in the suit given the stipulation between the parties that the case would be tried on a representative claim; and 6) defendant's product did not infringe any claim of the patents in suit generally and one patent specifically.

[06/18] Tip Systems, LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc.
In a patent infringement case involving wall-mounted telephones designed for use by prison inmates, summary judgment for defendants and the district court's claim construction order are affirmed where there was no error in the district court's claim construction and its holding that the accused devices did not infringe literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

Read More

Copyright

[07/02] Rodriguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp. of Carolina
In a medical malpractice case against defendant-hospital presenting the issue of whether an Asset Purchase Agreement entered between past and present owners of the hospital absolved the current owner's liability for acts or omissions by the hospital's previous owners and/or operators, the circuit court finds that the terms of the asset purchase agreement not only could, but did, absolve the present owners from liability.

[06/30] Greenberg v. Nat'l Geographic Society
In a lawsuit filed against National Geographic and Mindscape alleging plaintiff's copyrights were infringed by defendants' CD-ROM collection of the monthly magazine which included his photographs, the circuit court finds that: 1) publisher-defendant is privileged to reproduce and distribute digital CD-ROMs of the magazine under the "revision" prong of section 201(c) of the Copyright Act; and 2) despite reproductions in a different medium or enhanced digital search functions, the publisher's privilege continues as long as the original context of a collective work is not destroyed.

[06/20] Warren Freedenfeld Ass'n, Inc. v. McTigue
In a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by an architectural firm against its quondam client wherein the district court dismissed the architecture firm's copyright infringement claims as time-barred, ruled the client's counterclaim incapable of being proven, and denied anticipatory claims for attorney's fees, judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) the district court incorrectly charged the architectural firm with inquiry notice of the alleged acts of copyright infringement based on speculative facts on the record; 2) challenges to the court's denial of attorney's fees were moot, as defendants were no longer prevailing parties as to the copyright infringement claim; and 3) there was no trial-worthy issue as to any material fact on the resolution of client's counterclaims.

Read More

Intellectual Property

[06/30] Fisher Tool Co., Inc. v. Gillet Outillage
Where Lanham Act and state tort claims are based on a defendant's representation that someone infringed his patent, a plaintiff must show that defendant's representation was made in bad faith. In a suit against a French company that makes hose clamp pliers and its lawyers, brought by plaintiffs who sold similar pliers in the U.S. and alleged antitrust violations and malicious prosecution in a prior patent suit brought by defendant, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to establish that defendant-maker did not act in good faith or that it did not provide its law firm with facts in its possession that it "knew or should have known would defeat" the lawsuit; 2) defendant-firm could reasonably conclude that defendant-maker's infringement case was "tenable"; 3) Lanham Act and state tort law claims failed as plaintiffs did not present any evidence that defendants drafted or forwarded certain letters in bad faith; and 4) antitrust claims were barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

[06/30] Greenberg v. Nat'l Geographic Society
In a lawsuit filed against National Geographic and Mindscape alleging plaintiff's copyrights were infringed by defendants' CD-ROM collection of the monthly magazine which included his photographs, the circuit court finds that: 1) publisher-defendant is privileged to reproduce and distribute digital CD-ROMs of the magazine under the "revision" prong of section 201(c) of the Copyright Act; and 2) despite reproductions in a different medium or enhanced digital search functions, the publisher's privilege continues as long as the original context of a collective work is not destroyed.

[06/20] Warren Freedenfeld Ass'n, Inc. v. McTigue
In a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by an architectural firm against its quondam client wherein the district court dismissed the architecture firm's copyright infringement claims as time-barred, ruled the client's counterclaim incapable of being proven, and denied anticipatory claims for attorney's fees, judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) the district court incorrectly charged the architectural firm with inquiry notice of the alleged acts of copyright infringement based on speculative facts on the record; 2) challenges to the court's denial of attorney's fees were moot, as defendants were no longer prevailing parties as to the copyright infringement claim; and 3) there was no trial-worthy issue as to any material fact on the resolution of client's counterclaims.

Read More

Education

[07/03] Kountze v. Gaines
In an action seeking to remove trustees from an educational board, summary judgment for defendants and imposition of sanctions on plaintiff are both affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in finding that plaintiff was not a member of the board at the time he filed this derivative action and that he lacked capacity under state law to bring the action; and 2) there was no abuse of discretion in sanctioning plaintiff on basis that he included a defendant for improper purpose, knowing that the claims against it were barred by a prior dismissal.

[07/02] Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff Dep't
In an action alleging police officers violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights by ordering them to remove their truck (which displayed enlarged, graphic photographs of early-term aborted fetuses) from an area adjacent to a middle school, and by detaining them and searching the vehicle, summary judgment and dismissal rulings for defendants are reversed in part where: 1) plaintiffs' First Amendment rights were violated; 2) however, individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from a damages action on the issue; 3) plaintiffs established a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights because of the unreasonable length of two individuals' detention; and 4) they raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the deputy sheriffs unlawfully entered their security vehicle.

[07/02] Appel v. Spiridon
A preliminary injunction, preventing defendants from requiring plaintiff to submit to a psychological examination in order to maintain her teaching position at a state school, is reversed and remanded in light of a recent Supreme Court decision holding that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to a public employee asserting a violation of the Clause based on a "class of one" theory.

Read More

Remedies

[07/03] Crowley Marine Servs. Inc. v. Maritrans Inc.
In an action arising out of the collision of plaintiff's tug boat with defendants' oil tanker, a district court's reallocation of fault in the matter is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in considering the coordinated nature of the tug escort, the tug boat's violations of Rules 5 and 17(b), or the negligence of both plaintiff and the tug's captain; and 2) it did not err in apportioning 70% of the responsibility for the collision to the tug boat.

[07/02] Appel v. Spiridon
A preliminary injunction, preventing defendants from requiring plaintiff to submit to a psychological examination in order to maintain her teaching position at a state school, is reversed and remanded in light of a recent Supreme Court decision holding that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to a public employee asserting a violation of the Clause based on a "class of one" theory.

[07/02] Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In the context of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) failure-to-accommodate claims and the general rule that it is the responsibility of the individual with a disability to inform the employer that an accommodation is needed, the circuit court rules that an employer has a duty reasonably to accommodate an employee's disability if the disability is obvious?which is to say, if the employer knew or reasonably should have known that the employee was disabled.

Read More

Contracts

[07/03] Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Future Media Prods., Inc.
In an appeal brought by an oversecured creditor in a bankruptcy matter, an order denying the creditor default interest and attorney's fees is reversed and remanded where: 1) the bankruptcy court improperly applied the circuit court's rule from In re Entz-White Lumber and Supply, Inc., 850 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1988), to the facts of this case; and 2) the bankruptcy court should apply a presumption of allowability for the contracted for default rate, "provided that the rate is not unenforceable under applicable non-bankruptcy law."

[07/03] United Steel, Paper & Forestry, etc. v. TriMas Corp.
In an action to compel arbitration under the Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA) arising out of the parties' dispute over a neutrality agreement, summary judgment for union is affirmed where the district court correctly: 1) found that the dispute was covered by the language of the arbitration clause; and 2) left consideration of certain extrinsic evidence to the arbitrator.

[07/02] City of Geneseo v. Utilities Plus
In an action to recover damages from corporate defendant based on claims of contractual breach, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and fraud, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant's president was found to lack actual authority to enter a binding contract on the company's behalf; 2) the doctrine of apparent authority, which was limited under state laws, did not alternatively create a contract to be enforced; and 3) plaintiff had no basis to recover damages under alternative principles of contractual remedies.

Read More

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[07/02] Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
Petition for review an order of the Federal Trade Commission 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.

[07/02] City of Geneseo v. Utilities Plus
In an action to recover damages from corporate defendant based on claims of contractual breach, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and fraud, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant's president was found to lack actual authority to enter a binding contract on the company's behalf; 2) the doctrine of apparent authority, which was limited under state laws, did not alternatively create a contract to be enforced; and 3) plaintiff had no basis to recover damages under alternative principles of contractual remedies.

[07/02] Rodriguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp. of Carolina
In a medical malpractice case against defendant-hospital presenting the issue of whether an Asset Purchase Agreement entered between past and present owners of the hospital absolved the current owner's liability for acts or omissions by the hospital's previous owners and/or operators, the circuit court finds that the terms of the asset purchase agreement not only could, but did, absolve the present owners from liability.

Read More

Banking Law

[07/03] Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Future Media Prods., Inc.
In an appeal brought by an oversecured creditor in a bankruptcy matter, an order denying the creditor default interest and attorney's fees is reversed and remanded where: 1) the bankruptcy court improperly applied the circuit court's rule from In re Entz-White Lumber and Supply, Inc., 850 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1988), to the facts of this case; and 2) the bankruptcy court should apply a presumption of allowability for the contracted for default rate, "provided that the rate is not unenforceable under applicable non-bankruptcy law."

[07/02] Cavin v. Home Loan Ctr., Inc.
In a suit involving a mailer sent by defendant announcing its mortgage program and claiming that defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to present plaintiffs' with a firm offer of credit, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the letter at issue presented a firm offer of credit, despite the absence of some material terms and the minimal number of consumers who obtained the loan; and 2) thus, defendant did not violate the FCRA.

[07/02] US v. Erpenbeck
A sentence for bank fraud and conspiracy to obstruct justice is affirmed where: 1) the arguments raised by defendant in his appeal had no merit; 2) any errors committed by the court at sentencing were either harmless or militated in defendant's favor; and 3) the government agreed to waive arguments in its cross-appeal in the absence of a remand.

Read More

Family Law

[07/01] In re Cheyanne F.
Order terminating the parental rights of a mother pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 is affirmed over claims that the juvenile court erroneously omitted information required for notification forms under the Indian Child Welfare Act.

[06/30] Mardardo F. v. Superior Court (Yolo County Dep't of Employment and Social Serv.)
For purpose of Welfare and Institution Code section 361.5(b)(4), the phrase "the parent or guardian of the child" refers merely to the parent's or the guardian's current status in the current dependency proceeding, and the phrase "the death of another child" in the section means the death of any other child. In this case, the juvenile court properly applied the statute in denying reunification service to a 28 year old father who murdered a 13-year old girl when he was 15.

[06/26] In re S.B.
An order terminating the parental rights to a child under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 is reversed and remanded where: 1) the terminated parent had a continuing beneficial relationship with the child within the meaning of the statutory exception to termination of parental rights; and 2) the juvenile court did not comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Read More

Uniform Commercial Code

[06/25] BRASHER'S CASCADE AUTO AUCTION v. VALLEY AUTO SALES AND LEASING
The former version of the California Uniform Commercial Code requires a merchant buyer to adhere to reasonable commercial standards to obtain the status of a buyer in the ordinary course of business for purposes of section 9307.

[05/26] PROPULSION TECHS. v. ATWOOD CORP.
An agreement to manufacture boat parts is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds as a transaction in goods with no ascertainable quantity term, thus the claim for fraud in the inducement cannot survive.

[04/12] CHATSKY & ASSOCS. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY (BANK OF AM. CORP.)
The one-year limitations period of Code of Civil Procedure section 340(c), rather than the three-year limitations period of California Uniform Commercial Code section 4111, applies to claims by depositors against their bank for payment of forged checks written on the depositors' accounts.

Read More

International Law

[06/30] People v. Salcido
In an automatic appeal, a conviction of first and second degree murder, and attempted murder, and a sentence to death are affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the seizure of defendant in Mexico by agents of the United States and California governments by allegedly misrepresenting that defendant was a citizen of the U.S., in violation of the extradition treaty between the countries; 2) inadequate Miranda warnings during his return from Mexico; 3) denial of a commission to examine Mexican officials concerning defendant's confession; 4) prosecutions' for-cause challenges of prospective furors; 5) prosecution's peremptory challenges of minority group prospective jurors; 6) peremptory challenges of death penalty skeptics; 7) denial in part of a motion for discovery of personnel files of DEA agent and certain officers; 8) admission of evidence of defendant's molestation of victims; 9) admission of victim-impact evidence at the guilty phase; 10) prosecutorial misconduct; 11) jury instructions; 12) cumulative error; 13) delay in notice that the prosecution intended to offer evidence in aggravation; 14) admission of photographs of a victim; 15) exclusion of mitigation evidence that survivors would receive benefits from defendant's art sales; 16) jury instruction on weighing of factors; 17) cumulative prejudice; 18) failure to give curative instructions; 19) the multiple-murder special circumstance's failure to narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty; 20) constitutional vagueness of section 190.3, factor (a); 21) delay in the execution; 22) challenges to the death penalty scheme; and 23) denial of a motion for continuance to enable the defense to review juror questionnaires.

[06/30] Fisher Tool Co., Inc. v. Gillet Outillage
Where Lanham Act and state tort claims are based on a defendant's representation that someone infringed his patent, a plaintiff must show that defendant's representation was made in bad faith. In a suit against a French company that makes hose clamp pliers and its lawyers, brought by plaintiffs who sold similar pliers in the U.S. and alleged antitrust violations and malicious prosecution in a prior patent suit brought by defendant, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to establish that defendant-maker did not act in good faith or that it did not provide its law firm with facts in its possession that it "knew or should have known would defeat" the lawsuit; 2) defendant-firm could reasonably conclude that defendant-maker's infringement case was "tenable"; 3) Lanham Act and state tort law claims failed as plaintiffs did not present any evidence that defendants drafted or forwarded certain letters in bad faith; and 4) antitrust claims were barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

[06/30] Arar v. Ashcroft
In an action brought pursuant to the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) and Fifth Amendment by a dual citizen of Syria and Canada alleging he was mistreated by U.S. officials in the United States and removed to Syria with the knowledge or intention that Syrian authorities would interrogate him under torture, grant of defendants' motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff satisfied the Article III requirements as to certain claims and made a prima facie showing sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over defendants in New York; 2) plaintiff's allegations about the events surrounding his removal to Syria did not state a claim against defendants under the TVPA; 3) the circuit court rejects counts which would have required judicial creation of a cause of action pursuant to the Bivens doctrine, with regards to removal-related claims; 4) allegations about the mistreatment he suffered while in the United States did not state a due process claim against defendants; and 5) plaintiff did not establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over his request for a declaratory judgment.

Read More

Attorney's Fees

[06/30] Waltrip v. Kimberlin
In a priority dispute between competing liens, by a judgment creditor and debtor's attorney, over settlement proceeds, judgment finding the judgment lien had priority over the attorney lien is reversed and remanded where: 1) the creditor had a lien which did not cover commercial tort claims while the settlement proceeds at issue stemmed from commercial tort claims; 2) the attorney lien was created by the retainer agreement between plaintiffs and counsel, and it was created before creditor filed a notice of lien in the pending action; and 3) the notice of lien did not relate back to prior liens, as those liens covered different property.

[06/30] Sanders v. Lawson
The attorney's fees provision of the Elder Abuse Act does not authorize the award of trustee fees as costs.

[06/27] Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC
In an action claiming violations of both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA) arising from alleged barriers that deprived plaintiffs of full and equal access to a restaurant operated by defendants, the circuit court rules that, to the extent that Section 55 of the CDPA does authorize the award of fees to a prevailing defendant on nonfrivolous CDPA state claims that parallel nonfrivolous ADA claims, the ADA preempts Section 55 of the CDPA.

Read More

Workers' Comp

[07/03] State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WCAB
The California Supreme Court finds that the Legislature intended to require employers to conduct utilization review when considering requests for medical treatment, and employers may not use Labor Code section 4062 as an alternative method for disputing employees' treatment requests.

[07/03] BNSF Ry. Co. v. Swanson
Provisions of Minnesota Statute sections 609.849(a)(1) and (a)(2), governing a railroad's treatment of injured workers, are both preempted by the Internal Control Plans regulations adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act.

[07/02] Anderson v. Commerce Construction Services, Inc.
In an action for negligence arising out of a Nebraska subcontractor's employee's injuries while performing demolition work in Kansas, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) Kansas courts would have applied the lex loci delicti choice of law rule whereby the state where the tort occurred governs the merits of the litigation; 2) Kansas courts have only applied section 185 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws to cases dealing with subrogation; and 3) application of section 184's most significant relationship test would result in defendant prevailing.

Read More

International Trade

[07/02] Deckers Corp. v. US
In a suit contesting the proper classification of three styles of sports sandals under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, a decision holding that the merchandise was properly classified under subheading 6404.19.35 is affirmed where the sandals at issue have open toes and open heels, and lack the features of the named exemplars of 6406.11.80, and thus the imported goods are not classifiable under that subheading notwithstanding their claimed status as athletic footwear.

[06/30] In Re: New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litig.
In a putative class action lawsuit brought under section 1 of the Sherman Act claiming that defendants-manufacturers conspired in a price collusion to restrict free automobile trade, dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint is affirmed where, as indirect purchasers, plaintiffs lacked standing to sue under section 4 of the Clayton Act.

[06/17] Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd v. U.S.
In an antidumping case, a ruling concluding that the Department of Commerce possessed authority to conduct a particular changed circumstances review, but that it lacked authority to reopen a sunset review for reconsideration, is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) no statute prohibited review and there were no specified procedures which the Department failed to follow; 2) the trial court was not required to decide whether the actions were consistent with section 1675(b)(1) since the proceeding was not a "changed circumstances review"; 3) the Department has inherent authority to protect the integrity of its proceedings from fraud and to reconsider such decisions; 4) the Department's intention to reopen the sunset review proceedings is not ripe for judicial review since it is not a final decision, and withholding court consideration presents no undue hardship to the parties.

Read More

Evidence

[07/03] US v. Morriss
Denial of a motion to suppress statements made outside the presence of counsel is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erroneously found his Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach during an interview in which he provided inculpatory statements; and 2) the government violated his due process rights by interviewing him during a lapse in representation.

[07/03] US v. Anderson
A conviction for insider trading and money laundering is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the government's evidence was insufficient to convict him, 2) the district court erred in failing to give his theory-of-the-case jury instruction; and 3) that he is entitled to a new trial. The sentence is affirmed over the government's claims of error that the sentence was unreasonable because the court erroneously excluded certain stock sales as relevant conduct when considering the U.S.S.G. for illegal insider training.

[07/03] US v. Pearce
Convictions and sentences for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition are affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) a denial of a motion to suppress evidence based on officers' lack of either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop defendants; and 2) imposition of the 235 months sentence without addressing the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a).

Read More

Civil Rights

[07/03] Easley v. Reuss
On petition for rehearing, the circuit court grants a petition to cure an administrative error to a prior order but declines further review where: 1) petitioner failed to meet the strict requirements of Appellate Rule 35 for a hearing en banc; and 2) petitioner was raising issues that were not previously raised.

[07/03] White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
In an employment discrimination suit brought under federal and Michigan state law, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial where: 1) plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to suggest that defendant's purported reason for not promoting him had no basis in fact, did not motivate defendant's decision, or was not sufficient to explain its hiring choice; and 2) plaintiff produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in his favor on both single motive and mixed motive race discrimination claims.

[07/03] Jacob v. West Bloomfield
In a suit brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging a violation of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights when defendant entered plaintiff's property without a warrant to inspect the property for criminal violations of a land use ordinance, denial of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the purpose of the government intrusion was not merely administrative but also bore the threat of criminal sanctions; and 2) the fact that plaintiff did not endure an even more intrusive search does not obviate the Fourth Amendment's requirement that, absent exigent circumstances, officials may not conduct criminal investigations within the curtilage of a person's home without a warrant.

Read More

Trademark

[06/18] Boston Duck Tours, LP v. Super Duck Tours, LLC
In a trademark infringement dispute wherein the district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from using its design mark and using the phrase "duck tour" in its trade name, judgment is reversed and remanded where the district court: 1) committed clear error by finding the phrase "duck tour" non-generic, and thereafter accorded it excessive weight in conducting its likelihood of confusion analysis on defendant's trade name; and 2) clearly erred in finding a likelihood of confusion between parties' design marks wherein the greatest similarity between them, an image of a cartoon duck in water, was of minimal significance due to its highly descriptive nature.

[06/13] Natural Answers, Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.
In a trademark infringement case involving claims against defendants for the advertisement of certain health products, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the record unequivocally demonstrated that plaintiff did not own a valid trademark interest for claims of infringement brought under the Lanham Act; 2) plaintiff did not suffer injury for prudential standing to assert a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act; and 3) in light of plaintiff's insufficient interest and lack of judicial standing, plaintiff's claims also failed under alternative common law theories which require elements plaintiff could not prove.

[06/11] Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp.
An award to plaintiff of $15,000 in statutory damages under the Copyright Act, along with nearly $300,000 in attorney's fees, is reversed and remanded where: 1) the first act of infringement in a series of ongoing infringements of the same kind marks the commencement of one continuing infringement under 17 U.S.C. section 412; 2) defendant began its infringing activity before the effective registration date, and it repeated the same act after that date each time it used the same copyrighted material; 3) thus, the award of statutory damages was error; and 4) the district court may have erred as to the attorney's fees award.

Read More

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[07/03] United Steel, Paper & Forestry, etc. v. TriMas Corp.
In an action to compel arbitration under the Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA) arising out of the parties' dispute over a neutrality agreement, summary judgment for union is affirmed where the district court correctly: 1) found that the dispute was covered by the language of the arbitration clause; and 2) left consideration of certain extrinsic evidence to the arbitrator.

[07/01] In the Matter of Fiveco, Inc. v. Haber
In the context of a party commencing a proceeding to permanently stay arbitration after the 20-day limitations period for objecting to arbitration under CPLR 7503(c), such petitions are time-barred unless the basis of a party's objection falls within the exception set forth in Matter of Matarasso (Continental Cas. Co.) (56 NY2d 264 [1982]). That exception does not apply, however, when an arbitration provision found within a contract prevents finding that the parties never agreed to arbitrate.

[07/01] Espericuenta v. Shewry
In an action to recover damages arising from an automobile accident wherein a lien was asserted against the settlement proceeds to recover certain medical payments, an order denying a motion to extinguish or strike the lien imposed is affirmed where: 1) there had already been a judicial allocation of the medical expenses portion of the settlement in the order approving the victim's compromise; and 2) thus, there was no basis for modifying the order.

Read More

Trade Secrets

[06/13] Natural Answers, Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.
In a trademark infringement case involving claims against defendants for the advertisement of certain health products, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the record unequivocally demonstrated that plaintiff did not own a valid trademark interest for claims of infringement brought under the Lanham Act; 2) plaintiff did not suffer injury for prudential standing to assert a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act; and 3) in light of plaintiff's insufficient interest and lack of judicial standing, plaintiff's claims also failed under alternative common law theories which require elements plaintiff could not prove.

[06/12] Taylor v. Sturgell
In a case involving two friends' and antique aircraft enthusiasts' separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests asking the FAA for copies of technical documents related to a vintage airplane, summary judgment finding petitioner's suit barred by claim preclusion based on his friend's prior suit is vacated and remanded where: 1) the Court disapproves the doctrine of preclusion by "virtual representation"; and 2) based on the record as it stood, the judgment against petitioner's friend in the prior action did not bar petitioner from maintaining the suit at hand.

[05/15] Topps Co., Inc. v. Cadbury Stani S.A.I.C.
In an action alleging breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets involving a chewing gum licensing agreement, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) the licensing agreement was ambiguous as to defendant's entitlement to continual usage of trade secrets after the agreement's terminate date; and 2) extrinsic evidence did not weigh overwhelmingly in defendant's favor to permit a resolution of the agreement's ambiguity by summary judgment.

Read More

Commercial Law

[07/02] Deckers Corp. v. US
In a suit contesting the proper classification of three styles of sports sandals under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, a decision holding that the merchandise was properly classified under subheading 6404.19.35 is affirmed where the sandals at issue have open toes and open heels, and lack the features of the named exemplars of 6406.11.80, and thus the imported goods are not classifiable under that subheading notwithstanding their claimed status as athletic footwear.

[07/02] Cavin v. Home Loan Ctr., Inc.
In a suit involving a mailer sent by defendant announcing its mortgage program and claiming that defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to present plaintiffs' with a firm offer of credit, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the letter at issue presented a firm offer of credit, despite the absence of some material terms and the minimal number of consumers who obtained the loan; and 2) thus, defendant did not violate the FCRA.

[06/30] Waltrip v. Kimberlin
In a priority dispute between competing liens, by a judgment creditor and debtor's attorney, over settlement proceeds, judgment finding the judgment lien had priority over the attorney lien is reversed and remanded where: 1) the creditor had a lien which did not cover commercial tort claims while the settlement proceeds at issue stemmed from commercial tort claims; 2) the attorney lien was created by the retainer agreement between plaintiffs and counsel, and it was created before creditor filed a notice of lien in the pending action; and 3) the notice of lien did not relate back to prior liens, as those liens covered different property.

Read More

Landlord Tenant

[06/25] Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co.
In a discrimination, breach of contract, and bad faith suit brought in Tribal Court by an Indian couple against a non-Indian bank, which sold land that it owned, and had previously leased to plaintiffs, on a tribal reservation to non-Indians, judgment and award for plaintiffs is reversed where the tribal court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a discrimination claim concerning the non-Indian bank's sale of fee land it owned.

[06/20] California Nat'l Bank v. Woodbridge Plaza LLC
In an appeal involving interpretation of a provision dealing with calculation of rent for the extended term of plaintiff's lease of premises owned by defendant, a judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) the provision, interpreted from the parties' mutual intent at the time of contracting, was intended as a rent cap based on rent paid by a "financial institution" occupying a defunct bank's premises; and 2) because non-bank tenants were not the "successors" anticipated by the contract, their rent could not be used as a factor for calculating plaintiff's new rent, which is instead subject to the "then prevailing rate" as defined by the lease.

[06/12] 936 Second Avenue L.P. v. Second Corporate Dev. Co., Inc.
In a lease dispute involving the issue of whether the net lease itself must be considered by appraisers in valuing the demised premises for purposes of establishing the net rent for a renewal term of the lease, the Court of Appeals rules that, because the net lease does not exclude its consideration, it must be taken into account in valuing the property.

Read More

Probate Trusts

[06/26] Murphy v. Murphy
A probate court judgment finding plaintiff entitled to a constructive trust over one-half interest of decedent's real and personal property existing on the date of his death is reversed on collateral estoppel grounds where: 1) prior to the decedent's death, a probate court previously issued an order on behalf of decedent, authorizing the decedent's conservator to execute a living trust and pour-over will to implement an estate plan which effectively disinherited plaintiff; and 2) a careful balance of all the relevant factors supported that principles of collateral estoppel should serve to bar plaintiff's subsequent causes of action.

[06/25] Safai v. Safai
In a case involving a dispute over whether a minor's actions triggered the "no contest clause" contained in a trust instrument, the court of appeals finds that the minor's act of signing the "minor's consent" portion of an ex parte application for appointment of guardian ad litem did not equate to "voluntarily" participating in a trust contest, an act which a minor is legally incapable of pursuing by their own volition.

[06/24] IN Funeral Directors Ins. Trust v. Benefit Actuaries, Inc.
In a suit alleging violation of fiduciary duties under ERISA and breaches of common law duties to plaintiff by providing it with bad advice and failing to recommend measures that would stave off insolvency, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not provide evidence that defendants promised to administer the Trust in accordance with certain state law or that defendants knew the Trust would rely on it to follow the Michigan statute; 2) plaintiff failed to show that defendant assumed a duty to provide actuarial advice; 3) defendant did not breach a duty by failing to advise trustees about the risk of raising the specific stop loss deductible and about the Trust's poor financial situation; and 4) defendant did not breach a duty by failing to recommend that the Trust maintain adequate reserves.

Read More

Bankruptcy Law

[07/03] Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Future Media Prods., Inc.
In an appeal brought by an oversecured creditor in a bankruptcy matter, an order denying the creditor default interest and attorney's fees is reversed and remanded where: 1) the bankruptcy court improperly applied the circuit court's rule from In re Entz-White Lumber and Supply, Inc., 850 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1988), to the facts of this case; and 2) the bankruptcy court should apply a presumption of allowability for the contracted for default rate, "provided that the rate is not unenforceable under applicable non-bankruptcy law."

[07/01] Donell v. Kowell
In a suit arising to recover gains made by defendant, an innocent investor, from a Ponzi scheme, a judgment requiring him to disgorge his profits as fraudulent transfers under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act is affirmed where the circuit court: 1) adopted the largely uniform analysis used for applying the UFTA to allow recovery from investors in a Ponzi scheme, and describes a two-step process for determining the existence and amount of liability; 2) found there was no error in the district court's application of such analysis; 3) rejected arguments that courts should not be allowed to require innocent investors to disgorge net profits; and 4) declined to permit good faith investors to claim offsets for taxes or other expenses paid in connection with receipt and management of income from a Ponzi scheme.

[06/25] AG Capital Funding Partners v. State Street Bank and Trust Co.
In an action alleging breach of contract, violation of federal Trust Indenture Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence based on defendant's alleged failure to deliver debt transaction registration statements required to secure a debt, the court of appeals finds that: 1) plaintiffs' contract and Trust Indenture Act claims were barred by a release previously executed by plaintiffs as part of a bankruptcy settlement and that no fiduciary duties existed; however; 2) because negligence claims were not barred by the release and there were issues of fact as to whether defendant owed and violated a duty of care, plaintiffs' cause of action for negligence is reinstated.

Read More