SAN JOSE, Calif. - A California federal judge on Aug. 29 held that a commercial general liability insurer has alleged that some of the claims in an underlying lawsuit against the San Francisco Forty Niners Football Co. and others are potentially covered by a second insurance policy (First Mercury Insurance Co. v. Great Divide Insurance Co., No. 16-02114, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115872).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Aug. 29 found that a borrower failed to adequately plead his claims related to his application for a loan modification, granting a bank's motion to dismiss his claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional stress and violation of California law (Douglas K. Ivey v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., No. 16-cv-00610, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115863).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on Aug. 26 denied a motion to temporarily enjoin three state court cases filed against the maker of a line of hair products that allegedly cause hair loss, finding that the state courts do not threaten settlement of a federal class action that makes similar hair loss claims (Amy Friedman, et al. v. Guthy-Renker LLC, et al., No. 14-6009, C.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114934).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A federal judge in California on Aug. 26 granted a motion to dismiss filed by defendants in a shareholder derivative lawsuit, ruling that the lead plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims and failed to properly plead demand futility pursuant to the Delaware Supreme Court's ruling in Rales v. Blasband (In re Rocket Fuel Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 15-4625, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115023).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - Following an Aug. 25 hearing, a California federal judge granted approval that same day of a settlement agreement disposing of a class action over Yahoo Inc.'s scanning of emails, awarding the class $4 million in costs and fees and $20,000 in service awards (In Re Yahoo Mail Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-04980, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115056).
SAN FRANCISCO - In a 4-3 ruling, the California Supreme Court on Aug. 29 ruled that a California state court has personal jurisdiction over Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS) in Plavix personal injury cases involving out-of-state plaintiffs (Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. The Superior Court of San Francisco County, et al., No. S221038, Calif. Sup.: 2016 Cal. LEXIS 7124).
MADISON, Wis. - A federal judge in Wisconsin on Aug. 25 ruled that an insurance company has no duty to defend a manufacturer accused of making allegedly defective windows, finding that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling in Wisconsin Pharmacal Co. LLC v. Nebraska Cultures of California Inc. (2016 WI. 14, 367 Wis. 2d 221 ) made it clear that the integrated systems rule is applicable and does not require the insurer to provide coverage for damage caused to the homes of purchasers of the windows (Mary Haley, et al. v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co. Inc., No. 14-cv-99, W.D. Wis.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113752).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Aug. 23 granted final approval of a $1.9 million settlement to be paid by a retailer to end wage-and-hour class claims brought by employees, finding that the evidence, potential length of the case and overwhelming support from class members weighed in favor of approval (Lannden Bower v. Cycle Gear, Inc., No. 14-2712, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112455).
SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court on Aug. 24 declined a motion seeking review of an appellate ruling holding that a grinding machine's inevitable use with third-party asbestos-containing automobile brakes creates potential liability under strict liability and negligence theories, according to its docket (Renee Rondon, et al. v. Hennessy Industries Inc., Nos. S234839, Calif. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 23 affirmed a lower court ruling that an arbitration provision by DNA testing company 23andMe Inc. is not unconscionable under California law (David Tompkins, et al. v. 23andMe, Inc., No. 14-16405, 9th Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15443).
FRESNO, Calif. - An insurance company's motion for default judgment in a suit where it seeks to rescind a commercial insurance property policy issued to a man who claims that a warehouse he owned was robbed should be granted, a federal magistrate judge in California recommended Aug. 22, noting that state law requires insureds to provide truthful information on a policy application (United States Specialty Insurance Company v. Hussein Saleh, d/b/a 3 Hermanos Warehouses, No. 16-cv-00632-DAD-MJS, E.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111769).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Aug. 22 denied a motion for class certification filed by the plaintiff in a complaint over alleged unsolicited faxes and, in the same order, denied a motion for stay filed by the defendants as moot (True Health Chiropractic Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. 13-2219, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111657).
SAN FRANCISCO - Efforts by Oracle Corp. to recoup attorney fees it incurred defending patent infringement allegations - and to have those fees assessed against counsel for the plaintiff under the vexatious litigation statute - were unsuccessful on Aug. 22, when a California federal judge disagreed that the case qualifies as "exceptional" under 35 U.S. Code Section 285 (Thought Inc. v. Oracle Corporation, No. 12-5601, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111661).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - In an Aug. 19 brief opposing class certification in a suit over purported spyware that was preinstalled on computers, Lenovo (United States) Inc. told a California federal court that the case is "about a theoretical software security vulnerability that never materialized," arguing that certifications is inappropriate because the plaintiffs have not demonstrated any injury from the disputed software (In Re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, No. 5:15-cv-02624, N.D. Calif.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A California federal judge on Aug. 19 certified a class of Nike Retail Services Inc. workers suing for wages for time spent waiting for and during inspections following their shifts (Isaac Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., No. 14-1508, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110961).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Aug. 18 denied preliminary approval for a second time of a $100 million settlement between Uber Technologies Inc. and its drivers, who allege in two lawsuits that they have been misclassified as independent contractors, finding that, despite supplemental briefing, "the Settlement as a whole is not fair, adequate, and reasonable" (Douglas O'Connor, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-3826, Hakan Yucesoy, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 15-262, N.D. Calif.).