RIVERSIDE, Calif. - A California federal judge on Sept. 8 partially granted an energy drink company's motion for a default ruling on its claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and trademark infringement against an individual, awarding it $15,000 in statutory damages (Monster Energy Co. v. Mike McNamee, No. 15-0084, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120295).
ST. LOUIS - After finding that a pet food ingredient supplier lacked sufficient connection to California to support claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL), a Missouri federal judge on Sept. 8 dismissed a pet food maker's third-party UCL claims but allowed certain claims for negligence and indemnity to proceed (Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. The Blue Buffalo Co. Ltd., No. 4:14 CV 859, E.D. Mo.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118992).
CHICAGO - Allegations of trademark infringement, unfair competition and state law deceptive trade practices in connection with the "Four Aces" trademark for tobacco products will proceed, an Illinois federal judge ruled Sept. 3 (Top Tobacco, et al. v. Fantasia Distribution Inc., No. 14-8981, N.D. Ill.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117533).
BOSTON - A Massachusetts federal judge on Sept. 3 denied a data-storage company's request to amend its counterclaims against a corporation, in which it already asserts counterclaims for unfair business practices and unfair competition in violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and numerous other allegations, finding that additional amendments would prejudice the plaintiff in the case and cause delay (EMC Corp. v. Pure Storage, Inc., No. 13-12789, D. Mass.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117775).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on Sept. 3 issued a ruling on claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and several federal broadcasting laws in relation to the unauthorized broadcast of a fight program, awarding the licensed distributor of the program damages (J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Adrian Luna, No. 12-09673, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118611).
PASADENA, Calif. - A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel majority on Sept. 3 reinstated a service technician's class claim seeking compensation for time spent commuting in a company vehicle, finding that questions remain regarding whether that mode of transportation was required (Joseluis Alcantar, et al. v. Hobart Service, et al., No. 13-55400, 9th Cir.; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15687).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on Aug. 31 remanded a borrower's claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) to a state court for lack of jurisdiction, finding that a bank failed to show that the amount in controversy met jurisdictional requirements (Raymond Mott Jr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., No. 15-5783, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116501).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A California federal judge on Sept. 2 issued two orders: The first granted a motion for final approval of a $415 million settlement with Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Intel Corp. on employees' claims that the high-tech companies conspired to fix and suppress employee compensation and to restrict employee mobility by entering into agreements not to compete for one another's employees in violation of federal antitrust law, and the second partially granted motions for attorney fees, reimbursement of expenses and service awards (In Re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-2509, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., a Mexican fast-food chain, is deceiving its customers by claiming that its products are free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), a California woman claims in her class complaint filed Aug. 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Colleen Gallagher, et al. v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 15-3952, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California court on Aug. 31 affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a case filed by a property owner against a home warranty corporation, finding that she lacked standing to assert a claim for violation for California's unfair competition law (UCL) because she suffered no monetary or property damages (Alice J. Benham v. First America Home Buyers Protection Corp., et al., No. 141034, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 2; 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6265).
PASADENA, Calif. - A split Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 25 upheld a trial court's rejection of a class claim by consumers under Section 1 of the Sherman Act who allege the largest U.S. retailer of musical instruments conspired with guitar and amplifier manufacturers and a trade association to fix prices, finding that while there may have been conduct that violated antitrust laws, there was no evidence supporting the Section 1 claim (In re: Musical Instruments and Equipment Antitrust Litigation, No. 12-56674, 9th Cir.; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14960).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on Aug. 25 dismissed a food equipment maker's complaint, which asserted claims for fraud, violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and other allegations against a food company, finding that it failed to plead its claims with the required particularity (Super Chefs Inc. v. Second Bite Foods Inc., dba Stone Gate Foods LLC, No. 15-00525, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113468).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A California federal judge on Aug. 25 stayed a class action filed against a security company in which an employee asserts claims over hours and wages and violations of the California unfair competition law pending the outcome of a similar class action filed against the company (Ernie Ricardo Fernandez v. Brink's Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-02667, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112676).
LOS ANGELES - In an Aug. 24 brief opposing certification of a class of ex-employees whose data was compromised in a 2014 breach of its network, Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. argues in California federal court that "elements of injury and causation" for the plaintiffs "are entirely individualized" and, as such, not suitable for class treatment (Michael Corona, et al. v. Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., No. 2:14-cv-09600, C.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on Aug. 17 refused to dismiss part of a borrower's claim for violation of California's unfair competition law but granted a bank's motion to dismiss his claims for negligent misrepresentation (Edward C. Hendricks v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., No. 15-01299, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108313).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A federal judge in California on Aug. 18 declined to grant class action status in a suit accusing Apple Inc. of violating the Wiretap Act and the state's unfair competition law (UCL) by wrongfully intercepting, storing and preventing former Apple device users from receiving text messages sent to them from current Apple device users (Adam Backhaut, et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 14-2285, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107519).
PHILADELPHIA - A Pennsylvania federal judge on Aug. 13 denied an electricity supplier's motion to transfer a class complaint alleging misrepresentation of energy rates to a New York federal court, where three other similar class cases are pending (Michael Kantor, et al. v. Hiko Energy, LLC, No. 14-5585, E.D. Pa.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106448).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A state unfair competition law (UCL) claim and portions of a fraud claim will continue against defendants accused of breach of contract for failing to deliver computers or refund the bitcoin used to pay for the merchandise, a federal judge in California ruled Aug. 14 (Pete Morici v. HashFast Technologies, et al., No. 14-87, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107449).
LOS ANGELES - A California state unfair competition law (UCL) claim is the only claim remaining after a federal judge in California on Aug. 14 ruled on a motion to dismiss in a case accusing mortgage companies of foreclosing on the plaintiff's home despite promising to postpone the action after receiving written confirmation of the escrow closing date for the sale of the home by the plaintiff to another buyer (Deborah Davenport v. Seattle Bank, et al., No. 15-4475, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107499).
FRESNO, Calif. - In an unpublished opinion, a California appeals court on Aug. 10 affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction in a suit accusing an independent practice association (IPA) of violating the unfair competition law (UCL) by allegedly sending threatening notices and ultimatums to primary care physicians to dissuade them from contracting with another medical group (Saint Agnes Medical Center, et al. v. Sante Community Physicians IPA Medical Group, No. F069510, Calif. App., 5th Dist.; 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5697).
PHOENIX - A dispute over intellectual property covering low-priced, ornamental jewelry will proceed with an antitrust counterclaim in place, thanks to an Aug. 7 ruling by an Arizona federal judge (Origami Owl LLC v. West Coast Charms LLC et al., No. 15-110, D. Ariz.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103755).
ATLANTA - A Florida federal judge did not err in dismissing, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), allegations that The Estee Lauder Cos. Inc. violated the Sherman Act, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 7 (Duty Free Americas Inc. v. The Estee Lauder Companies Inc., No. 14-11853, 11th Cir.; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13837).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A California federal judge on Aug. 5 dismissed with leave to amend a class action complaint accusing an appliance manufacturer of knowingly selling defective ovens in violation of state laws, including the unfair competition law (UCL) (William Burdt v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 15-1563, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102761).
LOS ANGELES - A federal judge in California on Aug. 5 declined to dismiss a class action lawsuit accusing a credit-building and credibility solutions business of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the state's unfair competition law (UCL) by making repeated unwanted calls to the plaintiff's cellular phone despite requests to be placed on a "do-not-call" list and a cease-and-desist letter (Jeffrey A. Thomas v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., No. 15-3194, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103322).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - In dismissing a class action lawsuit with leave to amend, a California federal judge on Aug. 6 held that a Chinese restaurant did not discriminate or violate the state's unfair competition law (UCL) by charging a higher price for gluten-free menu items than for its regular menu items (Anna Marie Phillips v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro Inc., No. 15-344, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103481).