Commercial Law
[11/20]
Hukic v. Aurora Loan Serv.
In plaintiff's suit against defendants claiming breach of contract, tortious interference, and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, arising from a six-figure mortgage he obtained at an interest rate of 10.65% where he was to make monthly payments as well as taxes, insurance premiums and other charges and fees, summary judgment in defendants' favor and dismissal of plaintiff's claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress is affirmed because plaintiff did not comply with the terms of his agreement that required him to submit proof of payment.
[11/19]
Davis v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
In plaintiff's action against the Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford) claiming that Ford's billing practices under a retail installment sales contract in charging late fees is prohibited by the Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act, and actionable under Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, dismissal of the suit is affirmed where: 1) Ford's conduct of charging successive late fees for successive late payments does not violate Civil Code section 2982(k)'s prohibition on charging more than one late fee per delinquent installment; 2) plaintiff cannot allege Ford's billing practice is an unfair business practice within the meaning of UCL because the alleged injury is one plaintiff reasonably could have avoided; and 3) although Ford was the prevailing party, it cannot recover its attorney's fees pursuant to the Rees-Levering's reciprocal attorney's fees provision because the alleged Rees-Levering violation was merely a predicate to the UCL claims, and a prevailing defendant cannot recover attorney's fees under the UCL.
[11/19]
Iovate Health Sci., Inc. v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition, Inc.
In a patent case involving nutritional supplements containing a ketoacid and an amino acid to enhance muscle performance or recovery from fatigue, summary judgment holding certain of plaintiff's patent claims invalid as anticipated is affirmed as the Professional Protein advertisement constitutes an anticipatory printed publication under section 102(b) that invalidates the asserted claims of the patent as: 1) the ad discloses each and every claim limitation as a matter of law; and 2) a person of skill in the art, combining his or her knowledge of the art with the advertisement's suggestions, would have considered the advertisements to be enabled.
[11/16]
Corey Airport Servs., Inc. v. DeCosta
In an action by an advertising display company claiming that defendants conspired to ensure that a competing bidder on a municipal project would be awarded the contract, even though acceptance of plaintiff's bid would have been in the best interest of the city, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is reversed where the Supreme Court's broad statement that the unequal application of facially neutral law with the intent to discriminate may violate the Equal Protection Clause, in and of itself, did not offer defendants fair warning that their treatment of plaintiff was unconstitutional.
[11/13]
Kim Seng Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York
In a dispute over whether plaintiff's insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiff in a trademark infringement action under an "advertising injury" policy, summary judgment for insurance company is affirmed as the prior publication exclusion in the policy bars coverage for trademark infringement in this case.
[11/13]
Hawknet, Ltd. v. Overseas Shipping Agencies
In an appeal from the district court's order vacating the attachment of an electronic funds transfer (EFT), the order is affirmed and the case is remanded for an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction where: 1) the rule announced recently in Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., __ F.3d __, No.08-3477, 2009 WL 3319675 (2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2009), applies retroactively; and 2) a party's failure to assert an argument prior to the announcement of a decision which might support it does not constitute waiver.
[11/12]
South Bay Boston Mgmt., Inc. v. Unite Here, Local 26
District court's grant of defendant-union's motion to compel arbitration and denial of plaintiff's petition for declaratory judgment is affirmed where: 1) the Union neutrality agreement at issue was not void ab initio; and 2) the arbitration clause of the agreement remained in effect.
[11/10]
McFadin v. Gerber
In an action for breach of a sales representative agreement, dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed in part where one defendant's mere act of contracting with a resident of the forum state did not establish minimum contacts. However, the order is reversed in part where other defendants sufficiently directed the sale of the merchandise at issue into Texas such that they could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
[11/10]
Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' suit against the defendant-Cruise Line brought under the California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the False Advertising Law (FAL), and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), over charges added to the price of shore excursions taken during a cruise, trial court's order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment is vacated and remanded where: 1) trial court erred in concluding that the CLRA cause of action was barred by Civil Code 1781(c); 2) a plaintiff asserting UCL, FAL and CLRA must show that he or she relied on the defendant's misrepresentations; 3) plaintiffs did not rely on any representations made by defendants; 4) there are no material questions of fact about the cost of excursions.
[11/10]
Jackson v. Yarbray
In plaintiffs' malicious prosecution action against defendants involving an ealier case that arose from unsuccessful efforts to merge with businesses owned by defendants, trial court's finding that defendants are liable for the malicious prosecution of a civil action and award of $700,000 in general damages for emotional distress and $2.41 million in punitive damages to plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the judgment as to defendant's counsel who had represented them for part of the time the action was pending is affirmed in its entirety as the trial court did not err in concluding plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving counsel had acted with malice; 2) portion of the judgment awarding compensatory damages is reversed in part and remanded to determine the amount of attorney fees and costs properly recoverable as special damages by the plaintiffs as the trial court erred in precluding any recovery by the plaintiffs for attorney fees incurred in defending the underlying action; and 3) judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects.
[11/09]
Louie v. BFS Retail & Commercial Operations, LLC
In plaintiff's suit against defendants for violations of California's Disabled Persons Act (DPA), alleging the countertops in defendant's business establishments were allegedly too high to allow wheelchair access, dismissal pursuant to defendant's demurrer is reversed where, because a Florida federal case was resolved by a consent decree expressly reserving any damage claims, res judicata does not bar this claim for damages.
[11/09]
Kunelius v. Town of Stow
In plaintiff's breach of contract action against defendants involving a town's exercise of its statutory right of first refusal (ROFR) to purchase plaintiff's forest land and subsequent assignment of its right to a nonprofit conservation organization, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the liquidated damages provision applies to defendants, as the holder of an ROFR must meet all of the terms and conditions of the offer, including subsidiary terms such as the liquidated damages clause at issue; 2) the liquidated damages provision is enforceable; 3) district court's summary judgment with respect to a Chapter 93A claim, the business-to-business provisions of the consumer protection statute, was properly granted to defendants as Chapter 93A is not applicable where a nonprofit defendant is acting in furtherance of its core mission; 4) plaintiff's challenge to the district court's conclusion that she did not plead a violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in her complaint is rejected; and 5) plaintiff's remaining claims are rejected as meritless.
[11/04]
DMA Int'l., Inc. v. Qwest Comms. Int'l., Inc.
In an appeal from the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate an arbitral award, the order is affirmed where the arbitrator's factual findings regarding the meaning of the contract at issue could not be overturned simply because the evidence was conflicting. In addition, attorney's fees are awarded to respondent because petitioner's appeal vexatiously multiplied the proceedings.
[11/04]
Memphis Biofuels, LLC. v. Chicksaw Nation Indus., Inc.
In plaintiff's case against the defendants for repudiating an agreement whereby defendant was to deliver diesel fuel and soybean oil to plaintiff's refinery facility, dismissal of the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed as the defendant, a federally chartered tribal corporation, enjoys tribal-sovereign immunity.
[11/03]
Applied Med. Dist. Corp. v. Surgical Co. BV
In an appeal from the district court's denial of an injunction barring defendant from pursuing an action against plaintiff in Belgium, the order is reversed where: 1) the district court applied the wrong legal standard by requiring that the claims in the domestic and foreign action be identical, instead of engaging in the required functional inquiry concerning dispositiveness; and 2) the district court relied on the clearly erroneous factual determination that defendant's Belgian claims, other than goodwill indemnities, were available apart from termination.
[11/03]
Imation Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Elec. N.V.
In plaintiff's case against defendants arising from a patent license agreement dispute, judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in finding that plaintiff's subsidiaries are not licensed under the parties' patent licensing Agreement; and 2) the unambiguous Agreement makes clear that the license grant includes subsidiaries of plaintiff and defendant that meet the Agreement's Subsidiary definition.
[10/29]
Zhang v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiff's action against her insurer over disputes arising from a fire of her commercial premises, district court's ruling sustaining defendant's demurrer to a cause of action under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Business and Professions Code section 17200, is vacated and remanded with directions to reinstate the cause of action as an insurer connected with conduct that would violate Insurance Code section 790.03 can also give rise to a private civil cause of action under the UCL.
[10/29]
Schering-Plough Healthcare Prod., Inc.
In plaintiff's Lanham Act suit against defendants involving an oral laxative and over-the-counter versions of the drug manufactured by defendants, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint without prejudice is affirmed as the FDA is conducting a proceeding to determine whether defendants' drugs are misbranded now that there is an over-the-counter version of the drug.
[10/28]
Laster v. AT&T Mobility LLC
In a class action claiming that a telephone company's offer of a "free" phone to anyone who signed up for its service was fraudulent to the extent the phone company charged the new subscriber sales tax on the retail value of each "free" phone, denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where an arbitration clause's "premium" payment in the event of an arbitral award in favor of a customer did not prevent the clause from being unenforceable under California law.
[10/28]
Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc.
In subscriber's suit against defendant for disseminating false advertising to induce him and others to purchase more expensive high definition services, trial court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification is affirmed as the trial court did not apply an improper criterion in addressing the class certification issue and because it stated at least one valid reason for denying the motion for class certification.
Back to Main Menu
