FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Banking Law

[07/21] US v. Brantley
An above-Guidelines sentence and fine for check counterfeiting and bank fraud is affirmed as reasonable where a sentencing court: 1) may rely upon factors already incorporated by the Guidelines to support a non-Guidelines sentence; and 2) need not make specific findings regarding a defendant's ability to pay a fine recommended by a presentence report.

[07/18] US v. Godin
To obtain a conviction for aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. section 1028A(a)(1), the government must prove that the defendant knew that the means of identification transferred, possessed, or used during the commission of an enumerated felony belonged to another person.

More...

Bankruptcy Law

[07/22] In Re: Repine
Judgment against attorney for attempting to collect fees from debtor in violation of a stay imposed by a bankruptcy court is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) attorney willfully violated the stay in attempting to collect her fees; 2) attorney's refusal to consent to an agreed order to allow debtor to be released from civil incarceration caused debtor actual harm; 3) damages awarded to debtor for lost wages were appropriate; 4) debtor failed to set forth specific information regarding emotional damages; and 5) awarding attorney's fees to debtor was proper.

[07/22] Bondi v. Capital & Fin. Asset Mgmt. S.A.
Denial of motion by debtor in foreign bankruptcy proceedings to enjoin actions brought against it in the United States is affirmed where the district court acted within its sound discretion in interpreting 11 U.S.C. section 304(c)'s instruction to assure an economical and expeditious administration of a foreign estate.

More...

Commercial Law

[07/22] California Dep't of Water Res. v. Powerex Corp.
In a case arising out of the 2000-2001 California energy crisis, an order remanding the case to state court is reversed and remanded where: 1) review of a district court's decision to decline an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not barred by 28 U.S.C. section 1447(d); 2) in light of certain Supreme Court precedent, there is jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1291 to review the remand order; and 3) defendant, a Canadian corporation that markets and distributes electric power, is an organ of British Columbia, and thus falls within the definition of "foreign state" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and is entitled to a federal bench trial.

[07/21] Bandana Trading Co., Inc. v. Quality Infusion Care, Inc.
In an action for breach of contract, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the trial court erred when it refused to remove a juror for misconduct after the juror applauded by clapping her hands during defendant's rebuttal argument; 2) defendant was entitled to a new trial because the same juror committed misconduct during deliberations when she injected technical knowledge into the deliberations, intimidating other jurors and rushing them into a verdict.

More...

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[07/23] Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp.
In an employment discrimination case involving an employment agreement containing a mandatory arbitration clause, denial of defendant-employer's motion to compel arbitration and partial summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) for purposes of a breach-of-agreement theory, plaintiff did not properly initiate arbitration under the terms of his employment agreement via a letter he sent; and 2) the district court improperly granted summary judgment in plaintiff's favor on the issue of waiver.

[07/21] Simmons v. Ghaderi
In a breach of contract action arising from a medical malpractice suit, wherein plaintiffs sought to enforce an oral settlement agreement allegedly formed during mediation, a ruling upholding a decision to admit evidence relating to the mediation proceedings is reversed where: 1) the court of appeal improperly relied on the doctrine of estoppel to create a judicial exception to the comprehensive statutory scheme of mediation confidentiality; and 2) the evidence relating to the mediation proceedings should not have been admitted at trial.

More...

Patent

[07/21] Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy's Lab., Ltd.
In a patent case involving a class of drugs known as proton pump inhibitors, summary judgment for plaintiff ruling that its patent was enforceable is affirmed where defendants failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that: 1) the patent in dispute was invalid for obviousness; or 2) plaintiffs had engaged in inequitable conduct by attempting to deceive the Patent Office.

[07/16] Serdarevic v. Advanced Med. Optics, Inc.
In a suit seeking correction of inventorship and raising state law claims for unjust enrichment and fraud, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the presumption of laches applied since plaintiff delayed more than six years after she knew of the issuance of the patents; 2) plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of laches; 3) plaintiff failed to identify conduct that gave rise to an unclean hands defense; 4) unjust enrichment claims failed as defendants had assigned the patents more than six years before plaintiff's complaint; 5) claims for fraud were time barred; and 6) there was no abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 56(f) motion.

More...

Trade Dress

[05/29] UT Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info. and Research
In an action claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition, and cybersquatting, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) trademark infringement and unfair competition claims failed as plaintiff did not show that "Utah Lighthouse" was protectable, that defendant's use was in connection with any goods or services, and that defendant was likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the source of goods sold on its online bookstore; 2) defendant lacked a bad faith intent to profit from the use of plaintiff's trademark in several domain names under the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA); and 3) defendant's website met safe harbor conditions of the ACPA since it was a parody.

[12/26] McNeil Nutritionals, Inc. v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC
In a trade dress infringement action brought by the marketer of the artificial sweetener Splenda against defendants, who package and distribute sucralose as store brands to a number of retail grocery chains, alleging their product packaging is confusingly similar to Splenda's, denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed in part, but reversed in part as to certain boxes and bags where plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the third element of trade dress infringement, as there was a likelihood of confusion between those products' trade dresses and the analogous Splenda trade dress.

More...

Trade Secrets

[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.

[05/12] Othentec Ltd. v. Phelan
In an action raising claims under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act and the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to present evidence that defendant had used a computer to withdraw funds he was not authorized to withdraw for an illegal or unauthorized purpose; and 2) plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to show that defendants were using plaintiffs' trade secrets in their manufacturing process.

More...

Trademark

[07/17] Guaranty Bank v. Chubb Corp.
In a suit involving an insurer's obligation to defend its insured under an "advertising injury" policy when the insured was sued over the similarity of its name to a competitor's, summary judgment to the defendant-insurer is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff-insured had failed to give defendant timely notice of the suit and 2) plaintiff had been sued for common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition, but plaintiff's policy covered only suits involving registered trademarks.

[05/29] UT Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info. and Research
In an action claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition, and cybersquatting, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) trademark infringement and unfair competition claims failed as plaintiff did not show that "Utah Lighthouse" was protectable, that defendant's use was in connection with any goods or services, and that defendant was likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the source of goods sold on its online bookstore; 2) defendant lacked a bad faith intent to profit from the use of plaintiff's trademark in several domain names under the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA); and 3) defendant's website met safe harbor conditions of the ACPA since it was a parody.

More...