SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge did not err in granting Jack in the Box Inc. (JIB) summary judgment on its allegations that a franchisee committed breach of contract and trademark infringement, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled June 18 in a per curiam opinion (Jack in the Box Inc. v. Deepak Mehta, et al., No. 17-15336, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 16362).
SAN FRANCISCO - A former Jones Day partner filed a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) representative action complaint on June 19 in a California state court on behalf of herself and other female attorneys employed by the firm in California, alleging that it operates as a "fraternity" where female attorneys are "marginalized" and paid less than male counterparts (Wendy Moore, et al. v. Jones Day, et al., No. CGC18567391, Calif. Super., San Francisco Co.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A group of restaurant workers on June 18 sued the restaurant and its owner in a California state court, asserting claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and labor code (Pedro Mejia Garcia v. Nass Enterprise Inc., No. 567366, Calif. Super., San Francisco Co.).
PASADENA, Calif. - The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 18 affirmed a district court's decision to grant judgment on the pleadings for lenders and a loan servicer, holding that her claims were barred by a two-year statute of limitations and that she had no viable claim for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) (Pamela Rae v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. 17-55283, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 16344).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on June 14 granted final approval of a $142 million settlement that will be paid by Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank N.A. to resolve class claims that the bank opened accounts for individuals, enrolled them in products and services and submitted applications for products and services without consent (Shahriar Jabbari, et al. v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al., No. 15-2159, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A stay of an insurer's suit seeking a declaration regarding its duty to defend an insured in an underlying lead exposure suit is not warranted because the insurer's coverage suit does not present the same issues as the underlying lead exposure suit and the insured will not be prejudiced if the insurer's suit proceeds, a California federal judge said June 18 in denying the insured's motion to stay (James River Insurance Co. v. W.A. Rose Construction, et al., No. 18-2030, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101698).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge erred when dismissing a trademark infringement complaint on grounds of trademark invalidity, as well as in his subsequent order canceling the "Mastermind" trademark, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled June 15 (Raul Caiz v. William Leonard Roberts II, et al., No. 17-55051, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 16171).
SAN FRANCISCO - A disability claimant is entitled to long-term disability (LTD) benefits because the evidence from the claimant's treating physicians and evidence obtained from the disability insurer's medical reviewers support a finding that the claimant is disabled under the plan's any-occupation standard, a California federal judge said June 18 (Sarabjit Sangha v. Cigna Life Insurance Company of New York, No. 17-5158, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101725).
SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court on June 13 denied a nursing home's petition for review filed after an appellate panel upheld a lower court judge's ruling denying the nursing home's motion to arbitrate a man's wrongful death claim (Avila v. Southern California Specialty Care, No. S248114, Calif. Sup.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A federal grand jury on June 14 indicted six former employees of a wearable electronic device manufacturer of trade secrets theft in California federal court on charges that the former employees stole the company's trade secrets prior to accepting employment with competitor Fitbit Inc. (United States of America v. Katherine Mogal, et al., No. 18-cr-0259, N.D. Calif.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A federal judge in California on June 13 ruled that an architect and his firm have not shown that they have standing to bring claims for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in a trade secret misappropriation and RICO lawsuit by failing to provide sufficient evidence that they were victims of any predicate act (Eli Attia, et al. v. Google LLC, et al., No. 17-6037, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99400).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - In two putative class actions over a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA), a California federal magistrate judge on June 14 ordered an insurance agency to produce nonprivileged, responsive information requested by a reinsurer and its affiliates (Shasta Linen Supply Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., Nos. 16-00158 & 16-01211, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100158).
SAN FRANCISCO - Monsanto Co. filed a notice of supplemental authority in California federal court on June 12 that it contends supports its motion for summary judgment based on a failure of general causation proof in the multidistrict litigation for Roundup (In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2741, N.D. Calif.).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A marketing firm that deployed "zombie" cookies on the mobile devices of Verizon Wireless users violated New York consumer law, two wireless users argue in a June 13 brief in California federal court, claiming trespass and opposing the defendant's motion to dismiss (Anthony Henson, et al. v. Turn Inc., No. 4:15-cv-01497, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A purchaser of a vehicle who alleges that a lender made it impossible for her to make online payments and caused her to have a decreased credit score sued the lender on June 13 in a California state court, asserting causes of action for violation of the state unfair competition law (UCL) and breach of contract (Madeleine I. Turskey v. Ally Financial Inc., No. 18 -567229, Calif. Super., San Francisco Co.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A shareholder on June 13 sued an investment adviser and its board of directors in California federal court, seeking to halt the company's proposed merger deal with a financial planning firm until information necessary for shareholders to vote on the proposed deal is disclosed (Jerry Rubenstein v. Financial Engines Inc., et al., No. 18-3542, N.D. Calif.).
CHARLOTTE, N.C. - An asbestos judgment winner can proceed with her appeal in a California court to recover more than $360,000 from Chapter 11 debtor Kaiser Gypsum Co., despite objections by the company and its primary insurer, a North Carolina federal bankruptcy judge ruled June 14 in a minute order lifting the automatic bankruptcy stay (In re Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., et al., No. 16-31602, W.D. N.C. Bkcy.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A federal judge in California on June 12 denied a motion by the California attorney general that sought to amend a ruling issued by the court in February that enjoined the state of California from requiring companies to issue a warning regarding glyphosate (National Association of Wheat Growers, et al. v. Lauren Zeise, et al., No. 17-2401, E.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A District of Columbia federal judge on June 11 granted a motion to certify for interlocutory appeal a March order to allow the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to rule on whether the jurisdictional limits outlined in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), extend to unnamed, nonresident members of a putative nationwide class in federal court (Michael Molock, et al. v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., No. 16-2483, D. D.C., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97428).