Legal News HeadLines

Case Summaries

Family Law

[05/06] In re Domestic Partnership of Ellis and Arriaga
Under the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 and consistent with the rationale in Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 36 Cal.4th 824 (2005), a person's reasonable, good faith belief that his or her domestic partnership was validly registered with the California Secretary of State entitles that person to the rights and responsibilities of a registered domestic partner, even if the registration never took place.

[05/01] In re Lesly G.
Denial of a petition for modification, as well as a juvenile court order terminating parental rights under Welf. and Inst. Code section 366.26, are reversed and remanded where the juvenile court failed to hold the required hearing on petitioner's section 388 petition for modification before proceeding to a section 366.26 hearing.

[04/29] In the Matter of M. S v. E. S.
In a proceeding wherein wife sought an upward modification of maintenance and child support in a written separation agreement, judgment that the parties were bound by the terms of the separation agreement is affirmed where the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the spouse's application for increased spousal maintenance.

[04/25] State of California Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Leavitt
In a case involving whether the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) complied with an order requiring it to provide for the review of all foster care cases open on or after March 3, 2003, for benefits eligibility under a prior case's construction of a statute determining eligibility for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care program, denial of motions to enforce the judgment is reversed in part insofar as the court failed to address a request to authorize discovery regarding the agencies' compliance. Grant of agencies' motion for relief from judgment as of the date of the implementation of the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the agencies to implement the DRA as Congress intended.

[04/23] State Dep't of Soc. Serv. v. Superior Court (D.P.)
The juvenile court has the authority to order a dependent child returned to the home of designated prospective adoptive parents when, after a hearing held to determine whether the removal of a child from the home of prospective adoptive parents is in the minors' best interest, the court is of the opinion that an emergency removal occurring some three months earlier was in the minors' best interests but events which occurred since the removal justify returning the minors to the designated prospective adoptive parents' home. Furthermore, section 361.4 of Welf. & Inst. Code does not limit the juvenile court's discretion to order a minor returned to prospective adoptive parents after a hearing held pursuant to section 366.26(n).

[04/22] Edwards v. Edwards
In a child support case considering the applicability of the statutory support guideline to a competent adult child who has moved away to college, the court of appeals concludes that where neither parent retains "primary physical responsibility" under Family Code section 4055 subdivision (b)(1)(D) of an adult child for any percentage of time, the guideline formula, by its terms, is inapplicable.

More...

Trademark

[05/06] Estate of Coll-Monge v. Inner Peace Movement
In an action for trademark infringement and related claims, summary judgment for defendants-non-profits is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in holding that a non-profit corporation cannot be a related company whose use of the trademark is controlled by the mark's registrant; and 2) there remain disputed issues of fact regarding both the doctrine's applicability in this case, and the capacity in which testator registered the marks with the USPTO.

[04/29] Aktieselksabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc.
In an action brought opposing a trademark application, summary judgment for applicant is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court may consider all relevant issues brought by either party regardless of whether they were brought before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB); 2) the district court incorrectly applied a heightened threshold for a complaint; 3) under Section 2(d) an intent-to-use applicant prevails over any opposer who began using a similar mark after the intent-to-use filing date; 4) opposer provided sufficient facts to establish constructive use of the trademark; 5) opposer's allegations of bad faith intent to use the trademark were sufficient to give notice of the claim; and 6) dismissal of opposer's allegation of common law fraudulent misrepresentation was proper.

[04/14] Nasalok Coating Corp. v. Nylok Corp.
In a cancellation proceeding involving parties engaged in business related to self-locking fasteners using nylon locking elements, summary judgment for appellee is affirmed where, because appellant's claim of trademark invalidity in its petition to cancel a mark's registration amounted to a collateral attack on a judgment in an earlier infringement suit, the rules of defendant preclusion were properly applied to bar appellant from asserting that claim.

[04/07] N. Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc.
In a case where the district court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from engaging in certain alleged acts of false advertising and trademark infringement, order is vacated and remanded in part where: 1) district court erred in presuming that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction merely because defendants' advertisements were literally false; and 2) it is unclear whether the district court was correct in holding that the nature of trademark infringement gives rise to a presumption of irreparable injury in light of eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006).

[04/04] Angel Flight of Georgia, Inc. v. Angel Flight Southwest, Inc.
In a trademark infringement action where the district court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting "Angel Flight America" and affiliates from using the "Angel Flight" mark in a number of southern states for certain business purposes, the judgment is affirmed where the district court did not err in: 1) ruling that the defendant infringed plaintiff's common law trademark rights by using the mark in a manner that created a substantial risk of confusion; 2) ruling that plaintiff had not acquiesced to defendant's infringing use and was not estopped by laches from enforcing its common law rights in the mark; 3) issuing an injunction which was tailored to protect plaintiff's rights and prevent the public from confusion; and 4) cancelling a trademark on the ground that the registration had been obtained through fraud.

[03/26] Intersport Inc. v. NCAA
In an action involving plaintiff's license from the March Madness Athletic Association to use the trademark term "March Madness" for various business purposes, declaratory judgment in favor plaintiff is affirmed over claims that the circuit court: 1) erroneously interpreted the term "videos" as including material transmitted to Sprint PCS cell phone customers on demand; 2) impermissibly rewrote the language of plaintiff's license agreement; and 3) had an insufficient factual basis to enter judgment on plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim.

More...

Uniform Commercial Code

[06/25] BRASHER'S CASCADE AUTO AUCTION v. VALLEY AUTO SALES AND LEASING
The former version of the California Uniform Commercial Code requires a merchant buyer to adhere to reasonable commercial standards to obtain the status of a buyer in the ordinary course of business for purposes of section 9307.

[05/26] PROPULSION TECHS. v. ATWOOD CORP.
An agreement to manufacture boat parts is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds as a transaction in goods with no ascertainable quantity term, thus the claim for fraud in the inducement cannot survive.

[04/12] CHATSKY & ASSOCS. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY (BANK OF AM. CORP.)
The one-year limitations period of Code of Civil Procedure section 340(c), rather than the three-year limitations period of California Uniform Commercial Code section 4111, applies to claims by depositors against their bank for payment of forged checks written on the depositors' accounts.

[01/22] HICKS v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (KAUFMAN & BROAD HOME CORP.)
If set forth in conspicuous and understandable language, a disclaimer of the implied warranty of quality is enforceable. The trial court correctly concluded that written disclaimers in the sales and express warranty documents provided to the home buyers preclude their claim for breach of implied warranty.

[12/19] DALLAS AEROSPACE, INC. v. CIS AIR CORP.
Summary judgment was properly granted to defendant on claims of breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. The sale contract for a used aircraft engine had not been modified; its terms were not unconscionable; it disclaimed any representation as to the engine's airworthiness, which was in any event easily discoverable by plaintiff; no special relationship existed between the parties.

[12/15] MOCEK v. ALFA LEISURE, INC.
Although a different rule may apply where there is a breach of an express warranty, there is no requirement that the seller be given an opportunity to repair when the implied warranty of merchantability is breached.

More...

Contracts

[05/08] Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
In proceedings arising after the NLRB brought a complaint alleging that, by attempting to enforce certain provisions of a collective bargaining agreement with DHL Airways, petitioner-pilots' association had committed unfair labor practices, the association's petition for review of a finding that its conduct violated the National Labor Relations Act is granted where, under the analysis of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, the NLRB did not have jurisdiction over this Railway Labor Act dispute.

[05/08] Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)

[05/08] In Re: Peanut Crop Ins. Litig.
In an action against the government over the indemnification of losses covered by a privately issued and governmentally backed insurance policy, summary judgment for farmers on breach of contract claims is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) the policy did not create any contractual obligation for insurers to indemnify the farmers for lost peanuts in 2002 at a 31 cent quota rate since it was contingent on 2002 farm poundage quota allocations being made to individual farmers, and such allocations were never made; 2) the prevention doctrine was misapplied since the indemnification of the farmers did not depend on the allocation of quotas by the government; and 3) there was no detrimental reliance since government programs are subject to congressional modification, and the farmers had been notified that there would be revisions to the peanut quota program.

[05/07] Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.

[05/07] In Re: Barroso-Herrans
A bankruptcy court's approval of a settlement presented by the bankruptcy trustee is affirmed where the trustee's reading of certain of debtors' claimed exemptions, as limited to a $4,000 share of proceeds from each of two underlying lawsuits, was objectively reasonable.

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

More...

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[05/05] Perry Homes v. Cull
In an action arising after plaintiffs' home suffered serious structural and drainage problems, an arbitration award in favor of plaintiffs is vacated and remanded where: 1) the issue of waiver of arbitration by litigation conduct is an issue to be decided by courts; 2) waiver must be decided on a case-by-case basis, courts should look to the totality of the circumstances, and such waiver requires a showing of prejudice; and 3) plaintiffs waived arbitration and defendants were prejudiced, in this case.

[05/02] Wabtec Corp. v. Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB
In a licensing agreement dispute involving arbitration issues, appeal from a denial of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction and expedited discovery is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the district court's order was not an appealable interlocutory under the collateral order doctrine or the Federal Arbitration Act.

[04/30] Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP v. Koch
An arbitration award need not be vacated on grounds that the arbitrator refused to disqualify him or herself after receiving a timely notice of disqualification, when the notice was based on the disclosure of information the arbitrator was not required to disclose but nonetheless revealed out of an abundance of caution.

[04/25] Casden Park La Brea Retail LLC v. v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc.
A neutral arbitrator who has no pecuniary interest in profits generated by his employer's business relationship with a party or a party's representative has no substantial business relationship with the party or its representative and, therefore, no duty to disclose such transactions.

[04/25] Ross v. Bank of America, N.A.
In an appeal involving whether mandatory arbitration clauses found in credit card contracts issued by defendants, assuming they were products of illegal collusion among credit providers, give rise to Article III standing, dismissal of plaintiffs-cardholders' antitrust suit is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court erroneously held that plaintiff-cardholders failed to allege an "injury in fact" sufficient to confer Article III standing; and 2) plaintiffs' claims were ripe for adjudication.

[04/02] Soto v. County of Riverside
In a fee dispute action wherein a Memorandum of Understanding between plaintiff's union and county-employer contained a "cost-sharing provision" which required a disciplined employee to pay for half the hearing cost for an administrative appeal if the employee pursued the appeal through privately retained counsel rather than through the union, judgment finding such provision unconstitutional is reversed and remanded for correction of the judgment where: 1) although the provision violated an employee's due process rights under established case law; 2) the judgment drafted by the county and signed by the trial court did not accurately reflect the issues litigated.

More...

Patent

[05/08] Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.
In a patent case pertaining to alleged infringement by Microsoft and Dell of two patents owned by plaintiff-Lucent, summary judgment of non-infringement as to one patent is vacated and remanded where the district court's construction of the term "terminal device" was erroneous. Summary judgment of non-infringement as to another patent is affirmed as the district court's construction of the phrase "each successive iteration including the steps of" was proper.

[05/07] Solomon Techs., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In proceedings involving imports and sales of certain Toyota hybrid vehicles, an order finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and refusing to enter an order excluding Toyota's products is affirmed on the basis of noninfringement, although the circuit court declines to resolve the construction of a "continuously variable" limitation.

[05/07] Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc.
In a patent infringement action involving automated financial account processing systems, summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendants is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the construction of "remote interface" only encompasses publicly-accessible computer equipment and not consumer owned personal computers; 2) thus, defendant-Federated was entitled to summary judgment; 3) defendants-TD Ameritrade and HSBC were entitled to summary judgment only with respect to systems that are accessed solely via consumer-owned personal computers; but 4) further proceedings were required as to those defendants based on certain modified claim constructions.

[05/06] PSN Illinois, LLC v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc.
In a patent infringement action involving a method of fabricating porcelain veneers for teeth, summary judgment of non-infringement is affirmed where: 1) although the district court erred in excluding all finishing steps and construed the claim term "ready for mounting" too narrowly; nevertheless, 2) no reasonable jury could conclude that the accused process included an equivalent of the "ready for mounting" limitation under the doctrine of equivalents.

[04/29] Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Rambus, Inc.
In a patent case, an order denying plaintiff's attorney's fees application and entering findings adverse to defendant is vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss plaintiff's complaint where the case became moot once the defendant offered to pay the full amount of attorney's fees.

[04/28] Litecubes, LLC v. N. Light Prods., Inc.
In a patent and copyright infringement case, denial of a motion to dismiss by the defendant-appellant for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the denial of a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is affirmed where: 1) the district court need not consider whether the alleged patent infringement occurred in the U.S. in order to determine subject matter jurisdiction; 2) the extraterritorial limits of the Copyright Act apply to the elements of the claim, and not to the question of subject matter jurisdiction; 3) the court predicts that Eighth Circuit law would find that the term "sale" should be interpreted consistently in copyright and patent law; and 4) there was sufficient evidence for the jury verdict and the denial of a JMOL.

More...