LOS ANGELES - A lawsuit filed by an insurance claims examiner who alleges that she and other similarly situated examiners were improperly classified as exempt from receiving overtime is not appropriate to proceed as a class action because individual issues predominate, a California appellate panel ruled July 27, affirming a trial court's ruling (Anna Marie Gentile v. Keenan & Associates, No. B253097, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 3; 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5256).
LOS ANGELES - After finding no diversity jurisdiction, a California federal judge on July 27 granted a motion to remand a lawsuit filed against numerous banks in relation to their handling of a loan modification request to a state court (Guadalupe M. Roman, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. 15-4344, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97759).
OAKLAND, Calif. - After finding that a property owner failed to allege facts to show that she had standing to bring a claim for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) or that a bank had a legal duty to her, a California federal judge on July 27 dismissed her claims with leave to amend (Rosemary Greene v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 15-00048, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98454).
FRESNO, Calif. - A federal judge in California on July 24 dismissed with leave to amend claims under the state's False Advertising Law (FAL) and unfair competition law (UCL) as they related to an omission by the defendant that additional fees may be imposed after the purchase of an application used to control all the user's computers from one iPad or iPhone (Darren Handy v. Logmein Inc., No. 14-1355, E.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97021).
SAN DIEGO - In ruling on a motion to dismiss in a class action lawsuit accusing the manufacturer of Maker's Mark whiskey of deceptive advertising and business practices, a federal judge in California on July 27 dismissed state unfair competition law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) claims based on failure to plausibly allege likelihood of deception but allowed UCL and FAL claims based on the safe harbor doctrine to continue (Safora Nowrouzi, et al. v. Maker's Mark Distillery Inc., No. 14-2885, S.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97752).
PHILADELPHIA - U.S. Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 27 agreed to certify a class of direct purchaser plaintiffs in a long-running antitrust dispute over pay-for-delay agreements relating to generic modafinil (King Drug Company of Florence, Inc., et al. v. Cephalon, Inc., et al., No. 2:06-cv-1797, E.D. Pa.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge in California on July 23 granted preliminary approval of a $12 million settlement in a class action lawsuit accusing a tuna manufacturer and distributor of under-filling its products in violation of the state's unfair competition law (UCL) and approved the plaintiff's plan of allocation over the defendant's objections (Patrick Hendricks v. Starkist Co., No. 13-729, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96390).
SAN FRANCISCO - Retail establishments do not have standing to bring claims on their own behalf as indirect purchasers and have not adequately pleaded that they are entitled to injunctive relief in a pay-for-delay case, a California federal judge ruled July 17, while permitting the grocery stores an opportunity to amend their complaint (United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, et al. v. Teikoku Pharma USA Inc., et al., No. 14-02521, N.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A divided panel of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 21 affirmed dismissal of California state law unfair competition and conversion claims, but vacated a California federal judge's interpretation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) as permitting commercial marketing of a biologic before receiving U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval (Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al., No. 15-1499, Fed. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO - In a July 20 brief opposing dismissal, a former driver for Uber Technologies Inc. asserts that he was a victim of identity theft as a result of a data breach experienced by his former employer and, therefore, he has sustained an injury sufficient to established standing to bring his class action complaint against Uber (Sasha Antman v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01175, N.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES - A recent decision by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on the standard of proof in false advertising actions does not provide a basis for dismissing a suit alleging that the manufacturer of infant formula made false representations and engaged in misleading practices in the marketing of its product, a federal judge in California ruled July 14 (Oula Zakaria v. Gerber Products Co., et al., No. 15-200, C.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES - In a pair of July 10 in chambers orders, a California federal magistrate judge found deposition-related violations by two lawyer placement firms embroiled in a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit, awarding sanctions to each (Lateral Link Group LLC v. Habeas Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-05695, C.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES - Match.com subscribers who claim that they were not provided with the proper notice about their rights to cancel their subscriptions must arbitrate their claims, a California federal judge ruled July 10 (Zeke Graf v. Match.com, LLC, No. 15-3911, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90061).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge in California on July 13 dismissed without prejudice most claims in a class action complaint accusing a beverage manufacturer of placing misleading antioxidant-related statements on their products' labels in violation of the state's unfair competition law (UCL) for failure to meet pleading requirements but said that some of the claims arising from statements on the bottles were preempted and dismissed them with prejudice (Dorinda Vassigh, et al. v. Bai Brands, No. 14-5127, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90675).
DALLAS - Five consumers filed a class complaint on July 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against four major airlines, accusing them of conspiring to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize airline ticket prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (Elizabeth C. Cumming, et al. v. American Airlines, Inc., et al., No. 15-2253, N.D. Texas).
SANTA ANA, Calif. - A federal judge in California on July 10 dismissed multiple claims, including a state unfair competition law (UCL) claim, from a chiropractor's suit accusing the developer of a patented massage technique and the company certifying the technique for use by other chiropractors of interfering with his business and engaging in anti-competitive conduct (Vasili Gatsinaris, D.C., et al. v. Art Corporate Solutions Inc., et al., No. 15-741, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90086).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge in California on July 9 dismissed all claims, including a state unfair competition law (UCL) claim, from a class action lawsuit accusing a manufacturer of falsely representing that its product JavaSLIM would lead to rapid weight loss (Alhareth Aloudi v. Intramedic Research Group, No. 15-89366, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89366).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on July 7 granted final approval of settlement, valued by the plaintiffs at $24 million, to be paid by Nissan North America Inc. in a class suit accusing the company of misrepresenting the driving range and battery life of the its electric car (Humberto Daniel Klee, et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 12-8238, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88270).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A California federal judge on July 7 certified a class of workers who provide companionship and care to disabled adults and are seeking unpaid overtime (Horacio De Veyra Palana, et al. v. Mission Bay Inc., et al., No. 13-5235, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88091).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A California federal magistrate judge on July 5 excluded most royalty and damages opinions of two experts in a patent dispute, saying that the experts' "methodologically unsound opinion testimony" should not be presented to a jury (Good Technology Corporation, et al., v. MobileIron, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-05826, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87347).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A federal judge in California on July 6 reserved ruling on a state unfair competition law (UCL) claim in a home-loan dispute until the plaintiff has time to respond to a show-cause order as to why her claim for an alleged violation of California Civil Code Section 2923.5 should not be dismissed as being time-barred (Cecille Q. Paed, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 15-1980, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87345).
SAN FRANCISCO - A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 6 ruled that the manner in which Amazon.com Inc.'s website responds to a shopper's search request could create a likelihood of confusion (Multi Time Machine Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon Services LLC, No. 13-55575, 9th Cir.; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11554).
SAN DIEGO - In a July 2 unpublished opinion, a California appeals court affirmed a class action settlement over the objections of a class member in a case accusing QuickTrim LLC of improperly labeling its product in violation of the state's unfair competition law (UCL) (Teresa Anaya, et al. v. QuickTrim, et al., No. D067432, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1; 2015 Ca. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4697).
SAN FRANCISCO - Apple Inc. did not establish that AT&T Mobility, its alleged co-conspirator in a putative antitrust class action related to service for Apple's iPhones, was a necessary party to the action, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel majority ruled June 29, reversing a trial court's dismissal of the case for failure to join AT&T, per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 (Zack Ward, et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 12-17805, 9th Cir.; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11065).