Case Summaries
Commercial Law
Contracts
Corporation & Enterprise Law
Trade Secrets
Commercial Law
[10/08]
Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp.
In appeals arising following a jury's award in lost profits from defendant for breach of a requirements contract for the sale of carbon fiber, denial of defendant's motion for a new trial and motion for judgment as a matter of law are affirmed over claims that the district court erred: 1) by refusing to allow it to raise two arguments to the jury; 2) in ruling that defendant failed to make a submissible case that SP had abandoned the Supply Agreement; 3) by failing to remedy unfairly prejudicial testimony at trial; and 4) in various respects with regards to damages issues. However, modification of the jury award to reduce it by almost $16 million is affirmed on cross-appeal where the district court properly found the award duplicative.
[10/08]
Noble Sys. Corp. v. Alorica Cent., LLC
In an action against defendants for tortious interference with a business relationship, fraud and intentional and negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy to defraud plaintiff and convert its property, rulings against plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) grant of defendant's motion to take judicial notice of a financing statement it filed was not error; 2) one tortious interference claim failed as the allegations did not show that the defendant acted without justification, and the other claim was properly dismissed; 3) fraud and intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims were meritless; 4) conversion and replevin claims failed as plaintiff possessed no property interest that it could enforce against defendants; and 5) civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims failed as there was no requisite underlying fraud, conversion or tort supporting such claims.
[10/01]
In re Heritage Bond Litig.
In a challenge to the scope of bar orders issued in securities class action settlements, bar orders forbidding all suits by non-settling defendant against settling defendants relating to or arising out of the class action are vacated as overly broad and remanded for modification because bar orders issued pursuant to Private Securities Litigation Reform Act section 4(f)(7)(A) or California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 can only bar claims for contribution, indemnity, and claims where the injury is the non-settling defendant's liability to the class action plaintiffs.
[09/30]
Golden Gate Rest. Ass'n v. City and County of San Francisco
In a challenge to municipally mandated employer health care spending requirements, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed and the case remanded with instruction to enter summary judgment for defendant where the spending requirements are not preempted by ERISA because: 1) the spending requirements do not create an ERISA "plan" as defined by 29 U.S.C. section 1002(1); and 2) the spending requirements do not have an impermissible connection with employers' ERISA plans, or make impermissible reference to such plans.
[09/25]
US v. Able Time, Inc.
In an suit involving allegedly counterfeit watches seized by Customs and the resulting civil penalties imposed, grant of summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) the Tariff Act does not contain an identity of goods or services requirement; and 2) as a matter of law, goods imported by defendant could not be "merchandise bearing a counterfeit mark" under 19 U.S.C. section 1526(e) because the owner of the trademark in question did not at the time make the type of goods imported by defendant.
More...
Contracts
[10/09]
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. v. Oleas Enter., Inc.
In a breach of warranty lawsuit brought by plaintiff-clothing retailer, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is reversed where: 1) the trial court's interpretation of rightful claim was erroneous; 2) a rightful claim under section 2312(3) is a nonfrivolous claim of infringement that has any significant and adverse effect on the buyer's ability to make use of the purchased goods; and 3) under this standard, the trial court could not properly concluded, as a matter of law, that the third party infringement claim against plaintiff was not a rightful claim.
[10/08]
Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp.
In appeals arising following a jury's award in lost profits from defendant for breach of a requirements contract for the sale of carbon fiber, denial of defendant's motion for a new trial and motion for judgment as a matter of law are affirmed over claims that the district court erred: 1) by refusing to allow it to raise two arguments to the jury; 2) in ruling that defendant failed to make a submissible case that SP had abandoned the Supply Agreement; 3) by failing to remedy unfairly prejudicial testimony at trial; and 4) in various respects with regards to damages issues. However, modification of the jury award to reduce it by almost $16 million is affirmed on cross-appeal where the district court properly found the award duplicative.
[10/08]
Noble Sys. Corp. v. Alorica Cent., LLC
In an action against defendants for tortious interference with a business relationship, fraud and intentional and negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy to defraud plaintiff and convert its property, rulings against plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) grant of defendant's motion to take judicial notice of a financing statement it filed was not error; 2) one tortious interference claim failed as the allegations did not show that the defendant acted without justification, and the other claim was properly dismissed; 3) fraud and intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims were meritless; 4) conversion and replevin claims failed as plaintiff possessed no property interest that it could enforce against defendants; and 5) civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims failed as there was no requisite underlying fraud, conversion or tort supporting such claims.
[10/08]
Jay Bharat Developers, Inc. v. Minidis
In a claim arising out of a termination of a franchise agreement, grant of defendants' motion for preliminary injunction is affirmed over claims that: 1) the trial court erroneously followed Burger King Corp. v. Hall and refused to consider plaintiffs' alleged evidence of fraud in evaluating the merits of defendants' request for an injunction; 2) the trial court should have found that defendants' termination of the franchise agreement was proper before granting their request for a preliminary injunction; 3) defendants' unclean hands precluded the issuance of a preliminary injunction; and 4) the trial court should never have entertained defendants' motion given that the litigation had been ordered into arbitration before respondents sought injunctive relief.
[10/08]
Motorola Inc. v. Amkor Tech., Inc.
In a suit over the terms of a patent license agreement (PLA) between plaintiff and a third party, affecting the transfer of an interest in the patents to defendant, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant was not judicially estopped from changing its argument during trial about the relationship between two sections of the PLA; 2) the "law of the case" did not prevent defendant from changing its arguments on an earlier remand; and 3) there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact.
More...
Corporation & Enterprise Law
[10/10]
Potter v. Hughes
In a shareholder derivative action, dismissal for failure to make adequate demand on the board of directors is affirmed where demand letters regarding the disputed transactions were sent by a fellow shareholder and did not include plaintiff's name.
[10/09]
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. v. Oleas Enter., Inc.
In a breach of warranty lawsuit brought by plaintiff-clothing retailer, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is reversed where: 1) the trial court's interpretation of rightful claim was erroneous; 2) a rightful claim under section 2312(3) is a nonfrivolous claim of infringement that has any significant and adverse effect on the buyer's ability to make use of the purchased goods; and 3) under this standard, the trial court could not properly concluded, as a matter of law, that the third party infringement claim against plaintiff was not a rightful claim.
[10/08]
Jay Bharat Developers, Inc. v. Minidis
In a claim arising out of a termination of a franchise agreement, grant of defendants' motion for preliminary injunction is affirmed over claims that: 1) the trial court erroneously followed Burger King Corp. v. Hall and refused to consider plaintiffs' alleged evidence of fraud in evaluating the merits of defendants' request for an injunction; 2) the trial court should have found that defendants' termination of the franchise agreement was proper before granting their request for a preliminary injunction; 3) defendants' unclean hands precluded the issuance of a preliminary injunction; and 4) the trial court should never have entertained defendants' motion given that the litigation had been ordered into arbitration before respondents sought injunctive relief.
[10/06]
Crawford Group, Inc. v. Holekamp
In a dispute over the value of former executive vice president's stock in Enterprise Rent-A-Car, an order confirming an arbitration award of about $20.7 million against its parent company is affirmed where: 1) the AAA's resolution of the company's challenge to an arbitrator's appointment did not present a basis for vacatur of the arbitration award; 2) a particular paragraph of the agreement at issue did not deprive arbitrators of authority to determine the purchase price of plaintiff's shares; 3) the award did not exceed the scope of the submission; and 4) the arbitrators acted within the scope of their authority in reaching their conclusion and in setting the price of the stock.
[10/06]
Ley v. Visteon Corp.
In an action brought by individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired Visteon securities during a period between 2000 and 2005, grant of defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' class action securities violation claims is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to allege a misrepresentation or omission of material fact regarding spin-off claims; 2) dismissal of Restatement-related claims was proper as plaintiffs' allegations failed to adequately plead a strong inference of scienter on the part of Visteon and individual defendants; and 3) plaintiffs also failed to allege a strong inference of scienter on the part of defendant-CPA firm.
More...
Trade Secrets
[09/19]
Niemi v. NHK Springs Co., Ltd.
In a suit for misappropriation of trade secret, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel involving a method of manufacturing stabilizer bars for automobiles, summary judgment for defendant-corporation and dismissal ruling in favor of its parent company are affirmed in part as to the dismissal ruling based on a lack of personal jurisdiction, but reversed in part where there was sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact on trade secret and promissory estoppel claims.
[09/09]
Asset Marketing v. Gagnon
In a software copyright and trade secret case, summary judgment for defendant on the grounds of an implied license to retain, use and modify the software was affirmed where: 1) defendant requested creation of the software programs; 2) plaintiff created the programs for defendant and delivered them to defendant by installing them on defendants' computers and storing source code for the programs on defendant's premises; and 3) defendant manifested an intent that plaintiff would maintain and modify the programs.
[08/19]
In Re Cygnus Telecomm. Tech., LLC, Patent Litig.
In a patent dispute over computerized callback systems designed to lower the cost of overseas telephone calls, summary judgment of invalidity and dismissal of trade secret appropriation claims are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff was not collaterally estopped from appealing the invalidity finding despite not having named all defendants in its appeal; 2) plaintiffs produced no evidence disputing a statement by the inventor regarding the date on which he had reduced the invention to practice; 3) sales of a device that embodied the patent claims subjected the patent to invalidation despite that device's not being ready for sale on a commercial scale; and 4) the statute of limitations barred plaintiff's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets.
[07/29]
In re: Carco Elec.
In a dispute between competing bidders in the acquisition of debtor's production facilities during bankruptcy proceedings, an appeal from a protective order limiting the disclosure of the bidders' respective trade secrets during discovery is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where the order was neither final nor appealable under the limited scope of the collateral order doctrine.
[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.
More...
|
