CAMDEN, N.J. - An amended class complaint alleging that Riddell Inc. falsely markets its Revolution-brand football helmet as safer than others addresses deficiencies that led a federal judge in New Jersey to dismiss it without prejudice, class plaintiff Normal Thiel argues in a May 22 memorandum opposing Riddell's motion to dismiss (In re Riddell Concussion Reduction Litigation, No. 13-7585, D. N.J.).
PHILADELPHIA - On the eve of a planned June 1 trial, the Federal Trade Commission and Cephalon Inc. announced May 28 a $1.2 billion settlement in their long-running antitrust battle over reverse payments made in connection with the patented prescription sleep-disorder drug Provigil (Federal Trade Commission v. Cephalon Inc., No. 08-2141, E.D. Pa.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on May 26 accepted the offer of Reynolds American Inc. to sell four of its brands to British cigarette manufacturer Imperial Tobacco Group to settle charges that its proposed merger with Lorillard Inc. would likely be anti-competitive (In the Matter of Reynolds American Inc. and Lorillard Inc., No. 141-0168, U.S. FTC).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A California federal judge on May 22 granted a bank's motion to dismiss a wrongful foreclosure case against it, finding that a borrower's claims for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and California's unfair competition law (UCL) were barred by res judicata (Arketha Munir v. The Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee, No. 14-cv-05073, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67293).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A federal judge in California on May 15 declined to amend a judgment dismissing with prejudice claims, including one for violation of the state's unfair competition law (UCL), in a class action lawsuit alleging that a manufacturer of "flushable" wipes misled consumers in advertising the product because they are not really flushable, saying the plaintiff failed to present any newly discovered evidence or show that the dismissal was manifestly unjust (Jennifer Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., et al., No. 14-1783, N. D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64168).
SAN DIEGO - A federal judge in California on May 13 dismissed with leave to amend a plaintiff's class action complaint, which includes state unfair competition law claims (UCL), accusing a supplement maker of falsely labeling a male enhancement supplement because it does not produce the promised effects (Ryan Vigil v. General Nutrition Corp., No. 15-79, S.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63506).
ATLANTA - A motion to compel the underlying material in 27 "general" studies produced by the Federal Trade Commission relating to settlements of patent disputes between brand-name and generic drug manufacturers was denied May 11 by a Georgia federal judge (In re: Androgel Antitrust Litigation [No. II], MDL No. 2084 [All Cases], No. 1:09-md-2084, N.D. Ga.; Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., et al., No. 1:09-cv-955, N.D. Ga.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61076).
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. - Class action claims, which include a California state unfair competition law (UCL) claim, will continue against the producer and seller of food, body care and home care products after a New York federal judge on May 7 held that federal laws did not preempt the plaintiffs' claims that the defendant mislabeled products as "organic," "natural" or "all natural" (Leah Segedie, et al. v. The Hain Celestial Group Inc., No. 14-5029, S. D. N.Y.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60739).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A federal judge in California on May 6 dismissed with leave to amend a plaintiff's class action claims, including one for violation of the state's unfair competition law (UCL), against a bread manufacturer for allegedly misleading labels, saying the claims were not pleaded with the specificity required for claims sounding in fraud (Kelly Romero v. Flowers Bakeries, No. 14-5189, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59498).
LOS ANGELES - Finding that Blue Cross of California presented plausible evidence to establish federal jurisdiction over a putative class action related to liability from a data breach, a California federal judge in a May 5 in chambers order denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court (Manuel Vasquez, et al. v. Blue Cross of California, et al., No. 2:15-cv-02055, C.D. Calif.).
PHILADELPHIA - Two Pennsylvania men filed a class complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 6 against the participants and promotors of a boxing match between Floyd Mayweather and Emmanuel Pacquiao touted as "The Fight of the Century" for giving them anything but (Allan H. Gordon, et al. v. Showtime Networks Inc., et al., No. 15-2511, E.D. Pa.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A Fourth District California Court of Appeal ruling that the settlement of infringement litigation involving a generic form of the antibiotic Cipro did not constitute an illegal restraint of trade because the settlement term did not extend beyond the scope of the patent was reversed May 7 by the California Supreme Court (In Re: Cipro Cases I and II, No. S198616, Calif. Sup.).
PHILADELPHIA - Allegations by the Federal Trade Commission that several defendants engaged in monopolization by initiating alleged sham litigation against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. in Delaware federal court were dismissed by a Pennsylvania federal judge on May 6 (Federal Trade Commission v. AbbVie Inc., et al., No. 14-5151, E.D. Pa.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59115).
LOS ANGELES - A California woman on April 24 filed a class action lawsuit in federal court, accusing an online computer backup service provider of violating several state laws, including the unfair competition law (UCL), for failing to back up data as required, causing consumers to lose their data because they could neither restore nor retrieve the data in violation of several state laws (Sherry Orson v. Carbonite Inc., No. 15-3097, C.D. Calif.).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A federal judge in California on April 24 held that the plaintiff in a trade secrets case failed to establish a predicate breach of contract in support of its state unfair competition law (UCL) claim; therefore, the defendant was entitled to have judgment entered in its favor (Netlist Inc. v. Diablo Technologies, No. 13-5962, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54109).
SAN DIEGO - A federal judge in California on April 22 partially granted defendants' motion to dismiss a state unfair competition law (UCL) claim in a dispute over an allegedly fraudulent substance abuse program, finding that the parents had standing to bring the claim and seek restitution but could not seek injunctive relief and that the son lacked standing to bring a UCL claim. The court declined to dismiss all other claims (Christopher Keller, et al. v. Narconon Fresh Start, et al., No. 14-2168, S.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53596).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge in California on April 23 granted preliminary approval to a proposed class action settlement alleging that a mortgage lender and an insurer were involved in an unjust kickback scheme involving force-placed flood insurance, in violation of, among other things, the state's unfair competition law (UCL) (Stephen Ellsworth v. U.S. Bank, N.A., et al., No. 12-2506, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53625).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge in California on April 17 dismissed claims based on fraud and the state's unfair competition law (UCL) with prejudice in an alleged wrongful foreclosure case, while dismissing four other claims with leave to amend (Dan Wiskind v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, No. 14-4223, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51088).
LOS ANGELES - Three California residents on April 16 filed a class complaint against their former employer, American Apparel Inc., alleging that the clothing company violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the WARN Act), the California WARN Act and California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., when it executed a mass layoff earlier in the month without 60 days' notice (Carlos Hirschberg, et al. v. American Apparel, Inc., et al., No. 15-2827, C.D. Calif.).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A company that provides online listings to real estate agents failed to plead the existence of any protectable trade secrets, a California federal judge ruled April 13, mostly dismissing its complaint against leading online real estate marketplace Zillow Inc. (Top Agent Network Inc. v. Zillow Inc., No. 4:14-cv-04769, N.D. Calif.).
ALAMEDA, Calif. - The bench trial in a class suit brought by members accusing Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. of violating California Health and Safety Code Section 1367.63 by denying all requests for surgery to remove excess skin following bariatric surgery without first having a physician review each request concluded April 10, but not without Kaiser making a nonsuit motion and the judge chiding both sides for failing to present traditional opening arguments and then dragging out the trial (Wendy Gallimore, et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., et al., No. RG12616206, Calif. Super., Alameda Co.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. - A federal judge in California on April 9 dismissed a state unfair competition law claim (UCL) from a dispute over a defect in a portable navigation device but allowed claims for breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty to continue (TomTom International v. Broadcom Corp., No. 14-475, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47583).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A federal judge in California on April 8 declined to dismiss a class action accusing a beverage maker of misleading consumers by placing "All Natural" on its packaging for a sunflower drink when the product actually contains artificial or synthetic ingredients in violation of state laws, including the unfair competition law (UCL), but did dismiss the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief (Barbara Anderson v. The Hain Celestial Group Inc., No. 14-3895, N.D. Calif.; 1015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46708).
PHILADELPHIA - In light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down after a trial court certified an antitrust class against the producers of blood reagents, a Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on April 8 reversed and remanded the certification ruling, directing the trial court to consider the reliability of challenged expert testimony under the standards of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (509 U.S. 579 ) prior to making a class certification decision (In Re: Blood Reagents Antitrust Litigation, No. 12-4067, 3rd Cir.; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5630).