Legal News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[05/22] Services Employees International Union v. Rosselli
Jury verdict against defendant-union officials is affirmed, where: 1) section 501 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act creates a fiduciary duty to the union as an organization, not merely to the union's rank-and file members; 2) in actively attempting to obstruct the international union executive committee's decision to consolidate all of its California unionized long term healthcare workers from three different local unions into one, the local union officials breached the fiduciary duty they owed their own union as an organization, and because the breach contravened the union's constitution, it could not have been authorized; 3) the district court did not err in excluding irrelevant evidence, nor in issuing a permanent injunction; and 4) the district court did not err in reading the verdict to impose several liability, and not joint-and-several liability, on the defendants. (Amended opinion)

[05/21] Ateliers de la Haute-Garonne v. Broet Je Automation USA Inc.
In action in which plaintiff asserted counts of patent infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, the district court's ruling that the claims in suit are invalid for failure to disclose the best mode of carrying out the invention related to the process for distributing rivets is: 1) reversed in part, as to the judgment of invalidity on best mode grounds; 2) affirmed in part, that the patent was not abandoned; and 3) remanded for determination of the remaining issues.

[05/21] Hinojos v. Kohl's Corporation
District court's dismissal of claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Fair Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act brought by a plaintiff in a putative class action against defendant alleging false advertising, is reversed, where: 1) a consumer has "lost money or property" so long as false advertisements induced him to buy a product he would not have purchased or to spend more than he otherwise would have spent, and thus has standing to sue under the Unfair Competition Law and Fair Advertising Law because he has suffered an economic injury; 2) for the same reasons, plaintiff states a claim under the California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and 3) defendant' motion to certify the issues to the California Supreme Court both on the merits and because defendant only requested certification for the first time after oral argument.

[05/21] Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc.
Summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's claim that defendant violated his right of publicity for using plaintiff's likeness and biographical information in its NCAA Football series of videogames is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the NCAA Football 2004, 2005 and 2006 games at issue in this case do not sufficiently transform plaintiff's identity to escape the right of publicity claim; and 2) the only apparent use of plaintiff's likeness in NCAA Football 2009 (the photograph) is protected by the First Amendment, plaintiff's overall claim for violation of his right of publicity should have survived defendant's motion for summary judgment.

[05/21] Schwartz v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co.
Summary adjudication and subsequent judgment for defendant-insurer on plaintiff's claim alleging deceptive claims handling practices to wrongfully deny benefits to some insureds is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff-insured was never denied benefits; and thus, 2) plaintiff-insured lacked standing to pursue an Unfair Competition Law cause of action because the plaintiff-insured had not suffered injury in fact nor lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.

[05/21] Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Canada
The trial court properly quashed the service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction in an action for indemnity for personal injury damages, where: 1) mere foreseeability, at least where products are not sold in a state as part of the regular and anticipated flow of commerce into that state, is not enough to establish minimum contacts with the forum state; and 2) cross-defendant, a Canadian company, was not subject to personal jurisdiction in California because it did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state.

[05/20] Sebelius v. Cloer
An untimely petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act may qualify for an award of attorney's fees if it is filed in good faith and there is a reasonable basis for its claim.

[05/20] In re Tobacco Cases I
Trial court orders which awarded the People of the State of California $2,943,920.63 in contractual attorney fees as the prevailing parties in an action to enforce a consent decree and final judgment (Consent Decree) entered on a master settlement agreement (MSA) are affirmed, where: 1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the People were the prevailing parties under Civil Code section 1717; 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in using San Francisco Bay Area market rates for calculating the award of attorney fees rather than local San Diego rates; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion under section 1717 by not further reducing the lodestar amount.

Read More