Current News & Cases

Case Summaries

Banking Law

[08/31] Force Framing, Inc. v. Chinatrust Bank
In plaintiff's suit against defendant-lender for a bonded stop notice, trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment because plaintiff served the statutorily required 20-day preliminary notice on another lender, and not defendant, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment because there is a triable issue of fact regarding the reasonableness of plaintiff's belief that another lender was the lender for the project; 2) defendant's argument that plaintiff could not have held a good faith belief that the other lender was the actual lender because plaintiff did not check the county records for the deed of trust that the lender recorded in 2005 is rejected; and 3) the court is not persuaded that, as a matter of law, pursuant to Kodiak, plaintiff had constructive notice that defendant was the actual lender and could not have held a good faith belief that the other lender was the actual lender.

[08/30] Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Savings Bank
In plaintiff's suit for breach of contract against defendant-bank for nonpayment of fees under the parties' Technology Outsourcing Agreement, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) an expert's testimony was both relevant and reliable; 2) district court correctly determined that plaintiff did not breach the Agreement's performance warranty and its duty of good faith; 3) district court did not err in concluding that any reliance by defendant on the alleged misrepresentations of plaintiff was not reasonable; 3) district court committed no reversible error in determining that defendant's fraud claims were without merit; 4) district court determined correctly that defendant's success on the in-house issue does not render it a "prevailing party" within the meaning of the contract; and 5) the district court acted within the bounds of its discretion in determining that no additional guarantee of reasonableness was required.

[08/30] Lechoslaw v. Bank of America
In plaintiff's suit against a bank for damages, claiming that a four-and-a-half month delay in receiving his $31,787.34 disrupted the construction of a motel and restaurant in Poland and caused him severe emotional distress, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proving that the Bank in Poland met the requirements for the exercise of personal jurisdiction, and trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Bank did not waive its defense of lack of personal jurisdiction; 2) there was no abuse of discretion on the facts in the court's exclusion of the statement as offered against Bank of America (BoA); 3) there was no evidence that BoA violated chapter 93A in any of its dealings with plaintiff, and the district court properly entered judgment in its favor; and 4) it was not an abuse of discretion for the courts not to reopen discovery according to the Hague Convention.

[08/27] Jefferson State Bank v. Lenk
In an estate administrator's suit against a bank to recover money as a result of unauthorized transactions, approximately two years before she was appointed as the administrator, judgment of the court of appeals' is reversed and judgment is rendered in favor of the bank as the statute of repose in section 4.406 of the Business and Commerce Code bars the administrator's claims because she failed to notify the bank of any unauthorized transactions within sixty days of being appointed estate administrator.

[08/27] Paloian v. Lasalle Bank, N.A.
In a debtor-hospital's trustee's action to recover, as fraudulent conveyances, some loan payments made during the last years before hospital entered bankruptcy, judgment of the district court is vacated and remanded where: 1) LaSalle Bank is an "initial transferee" as an entity that receives funds for use in paying down a loan, or passing money to investors in a pool, is an "initial transferee" even though the recipient is obliged by contract to apply the funds according to a formula; 2) because the hospital was solvent in August 1997, the ensuing months' debt service cannot be recaptured as a fraudulent conveyance; and 3) on remand, the bankruptcy court is instructed to determine whether the transfer of the accounts receivable to MMA Funding was a true sale, such that MMA Funding served as the bankruptcy-proofing intermediary that the lenders desired.

[08/26] Bank of Am., N.A. v. UMB Fin. Servs., Inc.
In an appeal from a series of orders in which the district court declined to compel plaintiff to submit to arbitration and declined to stay litigation pending the outcome of such arbitration, the orders are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff never signed an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and the document plaintiff did sign, the employment agreement, did not incorporate the arbitration clause of the FINRA contracts by reference or otherwise; and 2) the court need not reach the question of waiver since the district court properly determined there was no existing right to arbitration in this case.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[09/01] Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In an action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and two Missouri police officers following an incident involving counterfeit money orders at a Raymore Wal-Mart store, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) given these undisputed facts, probable cause supported plaintiff's warrantless arrest; 2) attorney's fees were proper because plaintiff's continued prosecution of her false arrest claim against the officers in the face of the evidence upon discovery was unquestionably groundless and unreasonable; and 3) the record reflected no evidence of racial animus or hostility toward plaintiff.

[09/01] Sprinkles v. Associated Indem. Corp.
In plaintiffs' bad faith action against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, arising from an underlying suit against defendant and his employer for causing the death of plaintiffs' father in an automobile accident, trial court's judgment sustaining the insurer's demurrer is affirmed as, under the complaint and matters judicially noticed, the defendant-employee was an insured, rendering the automobile exclusion in the GCL policy applicable, and Fireman's Fund had no duty to defend the employer.

[08/31] Mader v. US
In an action against the U.S. under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging the Department of Veterans Affairs acted negligently in providing medical treatment to plaintiff's husband, dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed where a plaintiff meets the Act's jurisdictional prerequisites when she provides the relevant agency with: 1) sufficient information for the agency to investigate the claims; and 2) the amount of damages sought.

[08/30] Luo v. Mikel
In an action alleging serious injury sustained during an automobile accident within the meaning of New York Insurance Law section 5102(d), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where the district court's exercise of jurisdiction was proper. However, the order is vacated in part where, taken together with plaintiff's subjective evidence as to the impact of the injury on her functioning, plaintiff's medical evidence was sufficient to raise a question of fact issue as to serious injury pursuant to N.Y. Ins. Law section 5104(a).

[08/30] Meyers v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger
In plaintiff's occupational injury lawsuit against his employer, Amtrack, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to establish the required causation element of his FELA action is affirmed as, because plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the reports and testimony of his proffered causation experts were properly barred by the district court, and as such, plaintiff failed to raise genuine issues of material fact with respect to the causation element of his FELA claim.

[08/30] Next Step Med. Co., Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson Int'l

Read More

Insurance Law

[09/02] Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nat'l. Union Ins. Co.
In an action by one insurer against another seeking $10 million in subrogation proceeds, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff waived certain rights by refusing repeated invitations to participate in subrogation discussions. However, the judgment is reversed in part where, as the excess insurer, plaintiff was entitled to a priority interest in the subrogation proceeds representing insured losses.

[09/01] Sprinkles v. Associated Indem. Corp.
In plaintiffs' bad faith action against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, arising from an underlying suit against defendant and his employer for causing the death of plaintiffs' father in an automobile accident, trial court's judgment sustaining the insurer's demurrer is affirmed as, under the complaint and matters judicially noticed, the defendant-employee was an insured, rendering the automobile exclusion in the GCL policy applicable, and Fireman's Fund had no duty to defend the employer.

[08/31] Hayes Lemmerz Int'l, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.
In an employer's suit against its insurer for refusing to tender defense in an underlying suit under its workers' compensation and employer liability policy, judgment of the district court in favor of the insurer is affirmed as, because defendant was, by virtue of Indiana law, a joint employer, insurer was contractually obligated to reimburse the reasonable expense of defendant's getting itself dismissed from the tort suit. However, because the defendant is not claiming that insurer refused to pay that amount, but rather, it is complaining that the insurer breached its duty to defend by failing to advise defendant that it's law firm was not defending the suit properly, the insurer had no duty to provide its insured's lawyers with legal advice.

[08/30] Uhm v. Humana, Inc.
In an action against an insurer for nonpayment of Medicare benefits, the dismissal of the action is affirmed where 1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs' breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims because they were not properly exhausted under the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act; and 2) plaintiffs' fraud and consumer protection act claims, while not subject to the Act’s exhaustion provisions, were expressly preempted.

[08/30] Vill. Northridge Homeowners Ass'n v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
In homeowners association's suit against an insurance company, claiming that the insurer fraudulently induced it to settle a Northridge earthquake-related claim for less than it was worth under the policy, judgment of the court of appeals is reversed as a release of a disputed claim does not permit a party to elect the remedy of a suit for damages when the release itself bars that option. Instead, the insured party to the release must follow the rules governing rescission of the release before suing the insurer for damages.

[08/30] First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co.
In an action by the administrator of the estate of a murder victim, seeking the policy proceeds of a policy in the victim's name obtained by the perpetrator, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where, because the victim had an interest in the policy, payment to her estate was authorized due to the perpetrator's disqualification. However, the judgment is reversed in part where, absent its presence in the case, plaintiff was still required to establish the perpetrator's disqualification in order to recover other insurance policy proceeds.

Read More

Intellectual Property

[09/02] Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Inc.
In a suit for common law trade dress of a French-press coffee maker known as the Chambord, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as, Article 4 of the parties' contract is clear and precise as it allows defendant to sell the coffee maker design anywhere except France - provided that it does not use the Chambord or Melior names and does not use plaintiff's supply channels for four years.

[09/01] Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
In a patent infringement suit related to a drug for postmenopausal osteoporosis, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) the record amply supports the district court's conclusion that the ordinary artisan would not have considered it obvious to use raloxifene to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis; 2) because the district court's conclusion that the Bone Loss Patents would not have been obvious, its conclusion as to the Low Dose Patent is affirmed as well; 3) district court did not err in concluding that the Bone Loss Patents and the Low Dose Patents were not invalid for lack of enablement; 4) the district court did not clearly err in invalidating the asserted claims of the Particle Size Patents for lack of written description.

[09/01] Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elec. Corp.
In a patent infringement suit pertaining to various electrical and mechanical components of video cassette players and recorders (VCRs), judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment of infringement of three patents and the damages for the infringement are affirmed; and 2) district court's determination of no successor liability in applying the South Korean law is reversed and remanded.

[08/31] Stauffer v. Brooks Bros. Inc.
In plaintiff's qui tam action against Brooks Brothers under 35 U.S.C. section 292, claiming that defendants falsely marked its bow ties, district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim for lack of standing and denial of government's motion to intervene is reversed where: 1) plaintiff had standing as he has sufficient alleged (i) an injury in fact to the United States that (ii) is caused by Brooks Brothers' alleged conduct, attaching the markings to its bow ties, and (iii) is likely to be redressed, with a statutory fine, by a favorable decision; and 2) the district court made an error of law in denying the government's motion to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2).

[08/30] Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiff's patent infringement suit related to two types of digital storage devices, recordable discs (CD-Rs) and rewritable compact discs (CD-RWs), claiming that defendant was violating section 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing CD-Rs and CD-RWs that infringed its patents, the International Trade Commission's decision that the doctrine of patent misuse does not bar intervenor-U.S. Philips Corporation from enforcing its patent rights against defendant is affirmed as, even if Phillips and Sony engaged in an agreement not to license the patent at issue for non-Orange-Book purposes, that hypothesized agreement had no bearing on the physical or temporal scope of the patents in suit, nor did it have anti-competitive effects in the relevant market. Therefore, the asserted agreement between Phillips and Sony did not constitute misuse and cannot justify rendering all of Phillips' Orange Book patents unenforceable.

[08/30] Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Fin. Corp.
In plaintiff's suit against E*Trade Financial Corporation (E*Trade) for misappropriation of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, trial court's denial of plaintiff's request for award of reasonable royalties is reversed and remanded where: 1) given the jury's finding that E*Trade did not profit from its misappropriation of trade secrets, unjust enrichment is not "provable" within the meaning of section 3426.3; 2) since E*Trade had consistently and successfully taken the position that plaintiff's actual losses are not provable, E*Trade is estopped from arguing otherwise now; and 3) because neither actual loss nor unjust enrichment is provable, the trial court had discretion pursuant to section 3426.3(b) to order payment of a reasonable royalty.

Read More

Legal Malpractice

[08/26] Florida Bar v. Hall
In an attorney's disciplinary proceedings, arising from forgery and fraudulent recording of a lease agreement and agreement for sale between the attorney and property owners, a referee's recommendation of a ninety-day suspension is approved in part and disapproved in part where: 1) referee's finding of fact, recommendations of guilt, and award of costs are affirmed; 2) referee's reliance on Standard 7.0 is disapproved and instead Standard 5.0 should be applied; and 3) referee's recommendation of a ninety-day suspension is unsupported, as after considering the factual findings, the totality of misconduct, case law, and the Standards, disbarment is the appropriate sanction.

[06/25] JUNG v. MUNDY, HOLT & MANCE, P.C.
Plaintiff's malpractice claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, because wrongful litigation brought by attorneys against a client constitutes a continuing tort.

[05/27] ABASSI v. WELKE
The trial court may sua sponte entertain a second summary judgment motion following its denial of a previous summary judgment motion notwithstanding subdivision (e) of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.

[05/26] ABASSI v. WELKE
The trial court may sua sponte entertain a second summary judgment motion following its denial of a previous summary judgment motion notwithstanding subdivision (e) of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.

[05/21] KAEMPE v. MYERS
Plaintiff's claim for conversion of patent rights was properly dismissed because no such conveyance occurred. As he neglected to provide expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care, his legal malpractice claim fails as well.

[04/23] VINER v. SWEET
Damages award is vastly reduced in light of the California Supreme Court's holding that a plaintiff in a transactional malpractice action must show that but for the alleged malpractice, it is more likely than not that the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result.

Read More

Sports Law

[08/16] Adams v. Del. Harness Racing Comm'n
In an appeal from an order of the Delaware Harness Racing Commission claiming that it improperly sanctioned a horse trainer after his horses tested positive for a prohibited drug, the order is affirmed where: 1) the Commission did not deprive petitioner of a fair and impartial hearing; and 2) the Commission was lenient with petitioner because it treated all three offenses as first offenses and imposed the minimum penalties.

[07/23] Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp.
In plaintiff's antitrust suit against a tire supplier competitor and a motorsports sanctioning body, arising from the adoption of the so-called "single tire rule" by various sanctioning bodies in the sport of dirt oval track racing as well as the exclusive supply contracts between the sanctioning bodies and the defendant tire supplier, district court's grant of defendants' motions for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) a general rule is adopted that the Sherman Act does not forbid sanctioning bodies and other sport-related organizations from freely adopting exclusive equipment requirements, so long as such organizations otherwise possess, in good faith, sufficient pro-competitive or business justifications for their actions; 2) the district court was correct to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants because of plaintiffs' failure to meet the antitrust injury requirement; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion on rejecting a last minute attempt to amend a pleading for the fourth time.

[07/22] US v. Thomas
Cyclist Tammy Thomas's convictions for three counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice are affirmed where: 1) the jury could reasonably have concluded from all this testimony that defendant's grand jury testimony that she never received any "other products" was not literally true; 2) a reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant understood the question in count three of the indictment as the government understood it and that she answered falsely based on this understanding; and 3) there was sufficient evidence for the jury reasonably to conclude that defendant did not offer literally true answers in the exchange charged in count four of the indictment.

[07/16] George v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
In plaintiffs' proposed nationwide class action against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and Ticketmaster, alleging that defendants operated illegal lotteries to sell and distribute tickets for certain Division I championship tournaments, district court's dismissal of all claims is reversed and remanded where: 1) plaintiffs have alleged all elements of a lottery as they paid a per-ticket or per-entry fee (consideration) to enter a random drawing (chance) in hopes of obtaining scarce, valuable tickets (a prize); 2) because plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that the NCAA conducted a lottery, the bona fide business transaction exception to the statutory definition of gambling has no effect; 3) the district court erred in holding that the doctrine of in pari delicto bars plaintiffs from seeking relief from court; and 4) district court's order of dismissal must be reversed as to all counts remaining in plaintiffs' second amended complaint.

[06/25] Deutscher Tennis Bund 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.

[06/11] US v. Bonds
In the government's appeal from various adverse evidentiary rulings in the Barry Bonds perjury prosecution, the orders are affirmed where: 1) the district court finding properly focused on the record of untrustworthiness of trainer Greg Anderson in excluding his testimony; 2) the court correctly ruled that the government failed to show that certain statements by Anderson were authorized by Bonds, in excluding those statements; 3) there was sufficient basis in the record to support the district court's conclusion that Anderson acted as an independent contractor rather than an employee; and 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit certain log sheets as evidence that the samples listed were Bonds'.

Read More

Transportation

[08/31] Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp.
In an action seeking to attach defendant's property in New York as pre-judgment security for a pending arbitration in Hong Kong, dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court did not err in declining to fashion an equitable remedy in circumstances where it was clear that the original attachment order could not be sustained in light of Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009).

[08/30] Meyers v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger
In plaintiff's occupational injury lawsuit against his employer, Amtrack, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to establish the required causation element of his FELA action is affirmed as, because plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the reports and testimony of his proffered causation experts were properly barred by the district court, and as such, plaintiff failed to raise genuine issues of material fact with respect to the causation element of his FELA claim.

[08/30] Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Chimet, S.P.A.
In Delta Airlines' suit for declaratory judgment seeking to limit its liability for losing approximately 100 kilograms of pure platinum shipped from Italy to Pennsylvania, district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is affirmed as the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant's motion to dismiss as the private interest factors affecting the convenience of the litigants and the public interest factors affecting the convenience of the forum weighed in favor of litigating this dispute in Italy.

[08/26] R&B Transp., LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Admin. Review Bd.
Petition for review of a final decision and order of the U.S. Department of Labor's Administrative Review Board's (Board) award of backpay and other expenses to an employee, a commercial trucker, in determining that the employee's termination violated the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), is denied where: 1) it was not an abuse of the ALJ's broad discretion to admit DOT reports not as character evidence but both pursuant to the "public records and reports" hearsay exception and as proof of petitioners' knowledge concerning their history of complying with the driving regulation; 2) substantial evidence supports findings that a causal connection existed between the employee's protected activity and the adverse employment action against him, and that the petitioner's proffered reason for terminating the employee was actually a pretext for unlawful retaliation; and 3) the Board's legal ruling that petitioners waived their claim regarding backpay was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

[08/26] Tanen v. Southwest Airlines Co.
In plaintiff's suit against an airline for refusing to honor an expired $100 travel certificate, claiming that the expiration date violated Civil Code section 1749.5, which makes it unlawful to sell a gift certificate that contains an expiration date, trial court's order sustaining defendant's demurrer on the ground that plaintiff's claims were preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), is affirmed where: 1) for a claim to be preempted by the ADA, the claim must relate to airline rates, routes or services, and the claim must derive from the enactment or enforcement of state law; and 2) here, both prongs of the test are met as plaintiff's claims relate to "services" because they concern the airline's sale of gift certificates that can be used to purchase airline travel and his claims derive from state law because it is on a California statute that plaintiff bases his claim that the expiration date on the face of the gift certificate is unenforceable.

[08/24] Combo Maritime, Inc. v. U.S. United Bulk Terminal, LLC
In an action for contribution and indemnity, and property damage, based on a barge breakaway, summary judgment for third-party defendant is reversed where there were insufficient findings in the record to determine whether the passing vessel presumption should have been applied against third-party defendant.

Read More