SAN FRANCISCO - Considering the recent ruling in Morris v. Ernst & Young (834 F.3d 975 [9th. Cir. 2016]), a California federal judge on Nov. 16 found that a class action waiver in an employment-related arbitration agreement was unenforceable under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (Ravi Whitworth v. Solarcity Corp., No. 16-cv-01540-JSC, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158903).
LOS ANGELES - Adjudication of a premises liability asbestos claim arising from work in Iran did not resolve the question of duty under a negligence cause of action, a California appeals court held Nov. 17 (Nader Kordestani, et al. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp., et al., No. B257193, Calif. App., 2nd Dist.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - Lead plaintiffs in a securities class action lawsuit against a cyber-attack detection and protection software developer and certain of its executive offices have failed to plead a material misrepresentation, scienter or scheme liability in making their claims that the defendants misrepresented the impact of an acquisition deal's impact on product integration, a federal judge in California ruled Nov. 14 (Vijay Fadia v. FireEye Inc., et al., No. 14-5204, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157391).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Nov. 14 granted preliminary approval of a $300,000 settlement to be paid by Dolgen California LLC to a class of employees who worked at its Dollar General Market stores in California and allege numerous wage violations, including failure to pay overtime and provide meal periods (Julie Sullivan v. Dolgen California, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, No. 15-1617, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157269).
SAN DIEGO - A California federal judge on Nov. 15 ordered the class representative in a class action suit that accused Jos. A. Bank Clothiers Inc. of holding perpetual sales and misrepresenting its sale prices to pay $40,000 to the men's clothing company for lying about his purchases (David M. Lucas, et al. v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., No. 14-1631, S.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158044).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on Nov. 14 granted a motion to remand a case alleging injuries caused by birth control, which had originally been filed as seven cases that were consolidated by a California trial court, finding that the sua sponte consolidation was a judicial mandate, not a proposal to have the cases tried jointly (Jacqueline Alexander, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al., No. 16-6822, C.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157295).
SAN FRANCISCO - A defendant on Nov. 14 won the right to amend its patent invalidity contentions with more specificity, when a California federal magistrate judge agreed that the proposed amendments would not be futile (24/7 Customer Inc. v. LivePerson Inc., No. 15-2897, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157271).
SAN DIEGO - A California appeals panel on Nov. 14 upheld a trial judge's decision to require a man convicted of making false statements to physicians in connection with a workers' compensation claim to pay $30,154.02 to a risk services company, after finding that the defendant was unable to show that the amount should be limited to expenses caused by the crime for which he was convicted (The People of the State of California v. Chany Lopez, No. D069140, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1; 2016 Calif. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8197).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on Nov. 14 certified a refund and injunction class of Californians who purchased allegedly defective surgical gowns from Kimberly-Clark Corp. but denied certifying a nationwide class of purchasers because of differences in state fraud laws (Hrayr Shahinian, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., et al., No. 14-8390, C.D. Calif., Western Div.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Nov. 14 granted final approval of a $700,000 settlement between current and former McDonald's franchise employees and a Bay Area franchisee in a wage-and-hour class action and approved the requested $150,000 award of attorney fees to class counsel (Stephanie Ochoa, et al. v. McDonald's Corp., et al., No. 14-2098, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157302).
SAN FRANCISCO - In a Nov. 10 complaint filed against California Attorney General Kamala Harris in federal court, IMDb.com Inc., which operates the Internet Movie Database website, seeks injunctive and declaratory relief from a new California age discrimination law that it says constitutes "censorship in plain violation of the [First Amendment to the] U.S. Constitution" (IMDb.com Inc. v. Kamala Harris, No. 3:16-cv-06535, N.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES - A California appeals panel on Nov. 9 affirmed denial of a Taco Bell Corp. franchisee's motion to compel arbitration in a case alleging that it violated various wage and work condition requirements in the state Labor Code, saying that a job applicant who filled out a Taco Bell application form was not consenting to arbitrate with the franchisee because the franchisee's name was nowhere on the application (Jesus Mendoza v. Century Fast Foods Inc., No. B267158, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 8; 2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8090).
LOS ANGELES - Two former U.S. Congressmen saw their bid to participate in a lawsuit pertaining to the Family Movie Act of 2005 (FMA) as amici curiae denied by a California federal judge Nov. 10, with the judge finding their motion to be untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the parties' principal briefs relating to a pending motion to preliminarily enjoin an online video-on-demand (VOD) service from purportedly infringing copyrighted works (Disney Enterprises Inc., et al. v. VidAngel Inc., No. 2:16-cv-04109, C.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge in California on Nov. 10 granted a motion to dismiss a complaint that sought to assign an "R" rating to any movie that depicts tobacco use because movies are "expressive works" and are entitled to protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Timothy Forsyth v. Motion Picture Association of America, et al., No. 16-CV-00935-RS, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156719).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on Nov. 8 refused to dismiss a former truck driver's claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and Labor Code in relation to allegedly unpaid wages, finding that her employer's arguments on the inapplicability of California law could not be decided at the present stage of the case (Melody Montgomery v. New Prime Inc., No. 16-2131, C.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155861).