Current News & Cases

Case Summaries

Banking Law

[03/09] Martinez v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.
In an action under Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), claiming that a mortgage lender charged plaintiffs an illegal underwriting fee, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the clear and unambiguous language of RESPA Section 8(b) did not reach the practice of "overcharging"; and 2) the UCL claims alleging "unfair" and "fraudulent" conduct were preempted by the National Bank Act, and the allegations of "illegal" conduct failed to state a claim.

[03/02] Ma v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
In an action against Merrill Lynch based on unauthorized transfers from plaintiff's investment account, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where New York U.C.C. Section 4-A-505, which imposes a one-year statute of repose on certain claims based on electronic funds transfers, bars plaintiffs' common law claims, which had longer limitations periods.

[02/26] Williams v. Fleming
In plaintiff's suit against a bank, the US, and and an FDIC associate examiner, claiming that the associate examiner's racially motivated bias against plaintiff and other African-Americans was the reason he stopped receiving loans from the bank, dismissal of all claims including the Bivens suit against the associate examiner is affirmed where, because the dismissal of plaintiff's suit against the US was on the merits, and not for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, his remaining Bivens suit was properly barred by section 2676 of the FTCA.

[02/09] US v. Harris
Defendants' sentences for bank fraud and conspiracy to traffic in or use unauthorized access devices are affirmed in part where: 1) the district court did not clearly err in calculating one defendant's intended loss as being equal to the credit limits of the credit cards she compromised; and 2) a defendant's sentence may be enhanced where his crime recklessly jeopardizes property, even if that property survives the crime intact. However, one defendant's sentence is vacated in part where the district court erred by enhancing his sentence four levels based on its finding that his offense had involved fifty or more victims, because only eight of the sixty-three financial institutions identified as victims by the district court suffered an actual loss.

[02/05] Weintraub v. Quicken Loans, Inc.
In plaintiffs' action under the Truth in Lending Act against defendant for refusing to refund a $500 deposit plaintiffs' demanded after they attempted to exercise their right to rescind prior to closing on a loan to refinance their house, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed as a consumer cannot exercise the right to rescind created by 15 U.S.C. section 1635(a) until after consummation of a consumer credit transaction.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[03/10] Primiano v. Cook
In an action against the manufacturer of an artificial elbow, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the exclusion of plaintiff's expert's evidence was error as plaintiff's expert, with a sufficient basis in education and experience, testified that the artificial joint "failed to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in light of its nature and intended function," which was enough to assist a trier of fact.

[03/10] Fortis Corp. Ins. SA. v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS
In a maritime shipping case involving a claim for rust damage to steel coils caused by exposure to seawater during a journey from Poland to Ohio, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) a ship manager charged with providing a Master, officers and crew, and performing various other ship-management tasks for the shipping vessel does not qualify as a "carrier" under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), and thus the COGSA's one year-statute of limitations does not bar the underlying suit; and 2) defendant's claim that the district court's finding of negligence was based on clearly erroneous factual findings is rejected.

[03/09] Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.

[03/09] McGuan v. Endovascular Techs., Inc.
In plaintiffs' products liability action against the makers of a device for use by surgeons to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms, for injuries suffered after they were implanted with the device, grant of defendants' motion for a summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' fraud claims of FDA violations are preempted under Buckman; 2) the trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motions to amend their complaints; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants' motion to seal documents.

[03/09] Seltzer v. Barnes
Trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, arising from an underlying suit involving claims against a property management company and homeowners' association, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding plaintiff's two causes of action against defendant do not arise from speech or petitioning activity where his alleged conduct was the negotiation of a settlement in the prior case; and 2) because defendant may not be held liable for the alleged conduct under the litigation privilege, plaintiff has failed to show a probability of prevailing on her causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Read More

Insurance Law

[03/10] Darvell v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
In an ERISA action regarding defendant-insurer's denial of long-term disability benefits to plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) it was not an abuse of an ERISA plan administrator's discretion to ignore an opinion when the physician did not provide reliable objective evidence of testing or other proof to support a finding of long term disability; and 2) the plan administrator did not abuse its discretion by using the DOT description of plaintiff's occupation, rather than a description of his actual job duties.

[03/10] Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist. v. American Int'l Specilaty Lines Ins. Co.
In a sewerage district's suit for damages against an environmental liability insurer for denying coverage for costs incurred by the district in removing significant pollution on land it recently purchased, district court's judgment is reversed and remanded as the district court's finding that there was clear and convincing proof that a prior agreement existed between the insurance company and the sewerage district that the parcel would be covered property was clearly erroneous. Therefore, defendant is entitled to judgment on the sewerage district's reformation claim and, as a consequence, judgment in favor of defendant on its indemnity claim is vacated.

[03/10] Fortis Corp. Ins. SA. v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS
In a maritime shipping case involving a claim for rust damage to steel coils caused by exposure to seawater during a journey from Poland to Ohio, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) a ship manager charged with providing a Master, officers and crew, and performing various other ship-management tasks for the shipping vessel does not qualify as a "carrier" under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), and thus the COGSA's one year-statute of limitations does not bar the underlying suit; and 2) defendant's claim that the district court's finding of negligence was based on clearly erroneous factual findings is rejected.

[03/09] George's Inc. v. Allianz Global Risks US Ins. Co.
In an action against an insurer claiming that defendant failed to indemnify plaintiff for business expenses and personal property losses as required under the terms of its insurance policy, partial summary judgment for defendant on the personal property claim is affirmed, but a partial denial of summary judgment on the business expenses claim is reversed where the policy unambiguously excludes coverage for plaintiff's claimed losses.

[03/09] HealthEast Bethesda Hosp. v. United Commercial Travelers of Am.
In an action for breach of an insurance settlement contract, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) defendant was not an unsophisticated party because it had significant experience in handling and negotiating claims with healthcare providers; 2) because defendant bore the risk of mistake, the district court properly denied rescission based on unilateral mistake; and 3) the record of inaction by defendant strongly supported the denial of relief under both unilateral and mutual mistake.

Read More

Intellectual Property

[03/09] Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.
In an action for patent infringement relating to a design patent for a multi-function carpentry tool that combines a hammer with a stud climbing tool and a crowbar, a district court's finding of noninfringement is affirmed as the district court correctly construed the claim at issue and correctly determined that the patent was not infringed.

[03/08] Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiffs' suit alleging violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act in the importation and sale of certain lysine feed products made by the methods claimed in their patents relating to improved methods of producing L-lysine with genetically engineered E-Coli bacteria, the International Trade Commission's determination of no section 337 violation is affirmed where: 1) the asserted claims of plaintiffs' '698 patent and '160 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. section 112 for failure to comply with the best mode requirement; and 2) plaintiffs' argument that the Commissioner erred in finding '698 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct is waived.

[03/04] US v. Xu
Defendant's conviction for trafficking in counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs is vacated as to one count where a rational juror could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Zyprexa mark, allegedly misappropriated by defendant, was registered on the USPTO's principal register.

[03/04] Tivo Inc. v. Echostar Corp.
In a patent infringement action against EchoStar, relating to the software component of plaintiff's patent that allows television users to simultaneously record and play broadcasts using what is commonly known as a digital video recorder (DVR), district court's decision finding defendants in contempt of a permanent injunction is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decision to hold contempt proceedings; 2) there was clear and convincing evidence before the district court to find that both types of EchoStar receivers continue to infringe and that it was not an abuse of discretion for the ocurt to find EchoStar in contempt of the infringement provision; and 3) given defendant's refusal to disable the DVR functionality in its existing devices and the fact that its original attempts to design around TiVo's patent were wholly unsuccessful, the district court had ample justification for its determination that court pre-approval of any new design-around effort was necessary to prevent future infringing activity.

[03/03] In re: Whirlpool Corp.
In a trademark infringement suit brought by LG Electronics against Whirlpool, relating to a dryer that uses steam to reduce wrinkles, Whirlpool's petition for a writ of mandate challenging the district court's order to disclose communications between its attorneys and its outside advertising agencies is denied as it failed to show both that the order will be effectively unreviewable if Whirlpool is forced to wait until the end of the case and also that the order is patently erroneous or usurpative in character. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), that rulings that allegedly infringe upon the attorney-client privilege are not appealable as collateral orders, and as such, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Read More

Legal Malpractice

[03/04] Aills v. Boemi
In plaintiff's medical malpractice suit against defendant plastic surgeon arising out of negligence in connection with an elective surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeal is quashed and remanded as the district court erred in reversing for a new trial on the basis of an improper argument by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument.

[03/03] Willis v. Bender
In an action for lack of informed consent and medical malpractice, judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where there was no evidence, specifically expert testimony, that another physician was negligent and therefore no basis to hold defendant liable for his negligence. However, the judgment is reversed in part where defendant's alleged misrepresentations to plaintiff in response to her direct questions allegedly induced her to consent to the surgery and its risks, and under those circumstances, if proved, her consent could hardly be considered "informed".

[03/03] Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman
In an appeal involving defendants' anti-SLAPP special motion to strike (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16) plaintiff-former client's suit for various causes of action including breach of fiduciary duty, arising from defendants' prior representation in connection with plaintiff's efforts to redevelop real estate it owned in Beverly Hills, trial court's conclusion that section 425.16 did not apply because the gravamen of the action was breach of an attorney's duties of loyalty and confidentiality is reversed as all causes of action in the complaint arose from acts in furtherance of protected activity, and plaintiff could not show a probability of prevailing at trial.

[03/02] Davis v. Brouse McDowell, LPA
In plaintiff's legal malpractice suit claiming that defendants failed to timely file three patent applications related to a website-search engine, summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court exercised proper jurisdiction over plaintiff's malpractice cause of action; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in striking portions of the supplemental affidavit of plaintiff's patent law expert; and 3) plaintiff failed to introduce evidence sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the patentability of her inventions.

[02/26] Aills v. Boemi
In plaintiff's medical malpractice suit against a plastic surgeon for negligence in connection with a procedure of breast reconstruction, the decision of the second district court of appeal reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff is quashed and remanded as the court erred in reversing for a new trial on the basis of an improper argument by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument.

Read More

Sports Law

[03/01] Media Techs. Licensing, LLC. v. Upper Deck Co.
In a patent infringement suit involving patents related to memorabilia cards, district court's conclusion that the patents are invalid for obviousness is affirmed where: 1) defendants have met the burden of showing that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to attach a sports-related item instead of those items attached in the prior art references; and 2) secondary objective evidence also fails to establish non-obviousness.

[02/12] Galveston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Jaco
In plaintiff's action against a school district under the Texas Whistleblower Act, claiming that he was demoted from his position as a director of athletics and extracurricular activities for reporting a student's violations of the University Interscholastic League's (UIL) eligibility rules to officials, trial court's denial of defendant's motion for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is reversed and remanded as the elements of Tex. Gov Code section 554.002(a) can be considered to determine both jurisdiction and liability, and thus, whether the reporting of a violation of UIL rules and regulations to the UIL is a good-faith report of a violation of law to an appropriate law-enforcement authority is a jurisdictional question.

[02/08] Mansourian v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and Title IX action against a university arising after the university required women on the co-ed wrestling team to compete against men under men's rules, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) plaintiffs were not required to give the university notice of, and an opportunity to rectify, the specific violation to make out a Title IX claim; 2) the record did not contain undisputed facts showing a history and continuing practice of program expansion that was responsive to women's interests; and 3) as plaintiffs were students and therefore subject to the policy that allegedly discriminated on the basis of sex at the time they filed their complaint, their section 1983 claim was not time-barred.

[12/11] Kentucky Speedway, LLC v. Nat'l Ass'n of Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc.
In an action against NASCAR and an affiliated company that owns multiple racetracks, alleging violation of federal antitrust laws by not sanctioning a Sprint Cup race at plaintiff's racetrack and preventing them from purchasing other racetracks that already host such a race, summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding two experts' reports and deposition testimonies as being unreliable under Daubert; 2) without expert testimony, plaintiff lacks the ability to define the relevant markets necessary to succeed on its claims; and 3) plaintiff cannot demonstrate that NASCAR and the affiliate are legally capable of conspiring with each other or that its failure to obtain a Sprint Cup race constitutes an antitrust injury.

[11/25] Myers v. Lutsen Mountains Corp.
In a tort action arising out of injuries sustained by plaintiff while skiing on defendant's mountain, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the language of the release signed by plaintiff expressly and unambiguously excluded from its coverage claims arising from reckless or intentional acts, and the district court correctly found that the release was not ambiguous; and 2) the release did not violate public policy because the service offered by defendant was not necessary and could have been obtained elsewhere.

Read More

Transportation

[03/10] Fortis Corp. Ins. SA. v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS
In a maritime shipping case involving a claim for rust damage to steel coils caused by exposure to seawater during a journey from Poland to Ohio, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) a ship manager charged with providing a Master, officers and crew, and performing various other ship-management tasks for the shipping vessel does not qualify as a "carrier" under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), and thus the COGSA's one year-statute of limitations does not bar the underlying suit; and 2) defendant's claim that the district court's finding of negligence was based on clearly erroneous factual findings is rejected.

[03/02] Bhd. of Maint. of Way Employees' Div. v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co.
In an action by a union claiming that a railroad's proposed sale of a portion of its rail line to the state violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA), dismissal of the action is affirmed where the RLA reserved the dispute in this case to the Adjustment Board in the first instance, thus depriving the district court of jurisdiction, and the workers' remedy thus lay in the administrative process before the Adjustment Board.

[02/26] Pasternack v. NTSB
In a petition for review of the FAA's revocation of petitioner's airman certificates on the ground that petitioner refused to take a mandatory drug test, the petition is granted where the FAA erred by relying on an "implicit credibility determination" by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), when in fact the ALJ made no such credibility determination.

[02/24] American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Los Angeles
In an action seeking preliminary injunctive relief against certain regulations imposed by the Port of Los Angeles, a local governing body, upon motor carriers entering the Port premises, a denial of injunctive relief is affirmed in part where: 1) the Port was acting out of safety concerns when it enacted each challenged requirement; and 2) the Federal Motor Carrier Act granted only the Interstate Commerce Commission, the agency charged with issuing certificates of convenience, the power to revoke motor carriers' certificates of convenience. However, the order is vacated in part where 49 U.S.C. section 14506(a) did not contain a safety exception.

[02/23] Brown v. Ala. Dep't of Trans.
In a Title VII action alleging a racially discriminatory failure to promote plaintiff, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where there was ample evidence of racial discrimination specific to three of the promotions at issue, suggesting that defendant's proffered reasons were pretextual. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of discrimination or retaliation as to the remaining six promotions; 2) the jury's backpay award was plainly a cumulative figure reflecting each of the promotions, and thus a remand for recalculation was required; and 3) clarification was also required as to a portion of a permanent injunction requiring that plaintiff be instated to a "comparable position" pending her promotion.

Read More