Case Summaries
Intellectual Property
Property Law & Real Estate
Uniform Commercial Code
Corporation & Enterprise Law
Intellectual Property
[08/28]
The John Allan Co. v. The Craig Allen Co. LLC
In a trademark-infringement suit over defendant's use of the name "Craig Allen's" for a grooming salon, judgment that the name did not infringe on the mark "John Allan's" is reversed and remanded where: 1) evidence that consumers were confused by the two names should have been considered; 2) there were internal inconsistencies in findings regarding the likelihood of confusion of the two names; and 3) the "safe distance" rule did not require injunctive relief to assure that defendant choose a new mark that avoided all possibility of confusion.
[08/27]
Gander Mountain Co. v. Cabela's, Inc.
In a case arising from a contract dispute involving a 1996 transaction between the parties, summary judgment for plaintiff on a counterclaim, finding that a provision at issue was unenforceable because it was merely an agreement to agree, is affirmed over claims that the district court violated the law-of-the-case doctrine and erred in granting summary judgment.
[08/25]
Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
In a dispute over two patents for tobacco curing processes, judgment of unenforceability of both patents due to inequitable conduct and summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims due to indefiniteness are reversed and remanded where: 1) the evidence did not support findings of either deceptive intent or materiality with respect to the inequitable-conduct claims; and 2) a claim term construed by the district court clearly delineated the bounds of claim scope and was therefore not indefinite.
[08/21]
Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. VUTEk, Inc.
In a suit claiming infringement of a patent for an ink-jet printing method, summary judgment of invalidity is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not produce evidence to create an issue of fact on whether defendant's prior patent inherently anticipated certain claims in plaintiff's patent; and 2) other claims were properly invalidated as obvious in light of the anticipation finding.
More...
Property Law & Real Estate
[08/28]
Real Estate Equity Strategies, LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv.
In a quiet title action against defendant Internal Revenue Service (IRS), grant of IRS's motion for summary judgment and dismissal of case is affirmed where plaintiff mortgagor lost its ability to challenge the IRS's redemption when it failed to tender sufficient funds in its own attempted redemption.
[08/27]
Campbell v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc.
In a suit accusing defendant of filing a claim attempting to collect a pre-petition debt in violation of an automatic stay in plaintiffs' Chapter 13 bankruptcy, an interlocutory order granting partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) unpaid escrow payments that accumulate pre-petition in the year that a bankruptcy petition is filed, and which the creditor had a right to collect under the loan documents, constitute a "claim" under the Bankruptcy Code; but 2) the filing of a proof of claim including the amounts of these payments does not by itself violate an automatic stay in a bankruptcy proceeding.
[08/27]
Byrd v. Dressel
In an action brought by a group of homeowners and community organizations seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a city, employees, and developers who remodel and convert private homes into student residences, a judgment against plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) case precedent does not categorically preclude due process challenges to impermissible governmental action that deprives a person of real property; 2) however, under ordinary Due Process Clause jurisprudence, plaintiff failed to state a claim, notwithstanding it's understandable concerns about the aesthetics and ambiance of the neighborhood; and 3) claims under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and defendant-city's municipal code also failed.
[08/27]
216 Jamaica Ave., LLC v. S & R Playhouse Realty Co.
In a case involving the enforceability of a "gold clause" contained in a 1912 lease agreement, which required payment of rents to be in gold coins, a judgment against plaintiff-owner who tried to enforce the clause is reversed and remanded where: 1) contrary to the ruling below, the clause is enforceable; and 2) a remand was necessary for the district court to interpret the clause, to determine the obligation it imposes on the lessee, and to address any other defenses in the first instance, including lessee's estoppel-by-deed and waiver defenses.
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.
More...
Corporation & Enterprise Law
[08/26]
Brady v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc.
In a suit brought against one company and another which plaintiff contended was its alter ego for payment on certain bonds issued by defendant, dismissal of the claims is reversed where: 1) plaintiff acquired a right to sue on the Stated Maturity of his bond and that remedy was not time barred; and 2) furthermore, plaintiff's claims are not barred by res judicata.
[08/26]
Grynberg v. Total S.A.
In two suits against oil companies raising tort claims for breach of fiduciary duty and equitable claims for unjust enrichment involving potential oil and gas reserves in Kazakhstan, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and laches.
[08/26]
Mamot Feed Lot & Trucking v. Hobson
In a class action raising federal usury and antitying claims against a bank, its holding company, and various shareholders, officers, and employees of the bank, following the criminal indictment of the bank's president for defrauding the bank of nearly one million dollars, dismissal of the claim is affirmed where: 1) as sections 85 and 86 do not apply to state-chartered banks, the district court properly dismissed those claims brought under the National Bank Act for want of jurisdiction; 2) the district court properly dismissed a claim under 12 U.S.C. section 1831d for failure to state a claim; and 3) the complaint provided absolutely no facts to support an illegal tying claim.
[08/26]
Ley v. Visteon Corp.
In a class action securities violation case, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to allege a misrepresentation or omission of material fact regarding claims arising from a spin-off; 2) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter regarding claims arising from a Restatement filed with the SEC; 3) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter on the part of defendant-CPA firm, and thus dismissal of a section 10(b) claim was appropriate; and 4) dismissal of plaintiffs' section 20(a) claim was proper as there was no predicate violation of the securities laws.
More...
|
