LOS ANGELES - Moments after a California federal jury returned a $454 million verdict in a California class action trial involving MicroCool surgical gowns, the judge on April 7 urged the parties to try to resolve the dispute to avoid having the matter go on "for many years further after today's verdict" (Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC, et al. v. Kimberly Clarke Corporation, et al., No. 14-8390, C.D. Calif.).
SAN DIEGO - Customers of a stem cell therapy business sufficiently plead that the business advertised false and misleading information on its website about consumer satisfaction rates in a way that was deceptive to potential customers, though they must amend their class claims that the business misrepresented the efficacy of its treatments if those claims are to proceed, a California federal judge held April 6 (Selena Moorer, et al. v. StemGenex Medical Group, Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-02816, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53294).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on April 7 held that an insurer must contribute $2.6 million to the $15.8 million that another insurer paid to settle underlying negligent supervision claims against a California school district and three of its administrators arising from allegations that a teacher sexually molested three students (Westport Insurance Corp. v. California Casualty Management Co., No. 16-01246, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53903).
FRESNO, Calif. - A California federal judge on April 7 granted a motion filed by Ford Motor Co. to strike a consumer's punitive damages claim, finding that her claims under California's unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims do not allow for punitive damages (Beverly J. Marshall v. Ford Motor Company, et al., No. 1:17-CV-0006, E.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53935).
NEW YORK - A New York justice on April 6 issued an order to show cause, asking for input regarding the request by the head of the state's insurance regulatory body for an order creating an ancillary receivership of an insolvent California insurer (In the Matter of the Application of Maria T. Vullo, Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York, for an Order of Appointment as Ancillary Receiver of CastlePoint National Insurance Company, No. 153214/2017, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).
PASADENA, Calif. - A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on April 7 reinstated a wrongful termination claim by a garbage truck driver who was fired twice by the same employer, finding that the employer's proffered reason for the second firing - the employee's failure to provide proof of his legal right to work in the United States - violated California public policy (Gilberto Santillan v. USA Waste of California, Inc., No. 15-55238, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6027).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - After finding a lack of federal jurisdiction over claims related to a foreclosure case and that amendment would be futile, a California federal judge on April 6 dismissed claims for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and state law claims against a lender and trustee (Jose R. Carnero, et al. v. Elk Grove Financial LLC, et al., No. 16-cv-03606, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53290).
SAN FRANCISCO - Findings by a California federal judge that a copyright infringement defendant social media platform is entitled to safe-harbor immunity under Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 512(c), were reversed and remanded April 7 by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Mavrix Photographs LLC v. LiveJournal Inc., No. 14-56956, 9th Cir.; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6028).
LOS ANGELES - The California Supreme Court on April 6 reversed a court's ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt a rule that provides that arbitration agreements for public injunctive relief under California's unfair competition law (UCL) and false advertising law are not enforceable in California, remanding a credit card user's allegations related to marketing of the card against the lender for further review (Sharon McGill v. Citibank, N.A., No. S224086, Calif. Sup., 2017 Cal. LEXIS 2551).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal jury on April 7 returned a $454 million verdict in a California class action trial alleging that defendants Kimberly-Clark Corp. and spinoff Halyard Health Inc. sold surgical gowns that did not meet standards for protecting operating room personnel from bodily fluids (Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC, et al. v. Kimberly Clarke Corporation, et al., No. 14-8390, C.D. Calif.).
SAN DIEGO - A California federal judge on April 5 dismissed numerous claims asserted by a property owner, including causes of action for violations of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), finding that he failed to plead the claims with the required specificity (Fernando D. Lopez v. Wells Fargo, N.A., et al., No. 16-cv-0811, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52527).
SAN FRANCISCO - In a complaint filed April 6 in a California federal court, Twitter Inc. says that a government-issued summons seeking to identify the operator of an account critical of the government exceeds the authority of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and runs afoul of the right to speak anonymously under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Twitter Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 3:17-cv-01916, N.D. Calif.).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A California federal judge on April 5 denied a massage parlor franchisor's motion for judgment on the pleadings or to strike class action allegations in a case in which franchise members claim that they were charged fees above those in the membership agreements they signed, saying the plaintiffs' claims are not barred by previous court actions and settlement agreements (Baerbel McKinney-Drobnis, et al. v. Massage Envy Franchising LLC, No. 4:116-cv-06450, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52165).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Just 23 days before oral arguments, the acting U.S. solicitor general on April 5 asked the U.S. Supreme Court for leave to participate in oral argument in a drug product liability forum case (Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, et al., No. 16-466, U.S. Sup.).
SAN DIEGO - In a patent infringement lawsuit, a California federal judge on April 3 addressed several motions to exclude testimony on damages and reasonable royalty with regard to the alleged infringement by wireless companies to a patent relating to a mobile communication system with a moving base station (Carucel Investments L.P. v. Novatel Wireless Inc., et al., No. 16-118, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50855).
SAN FRANCISCO - An order that granted a special motion to strike a common-law right of publicity claim pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute was not erroneous because the claims are preempted by Section 301 of the federal Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 5 (Patrick Maloney, et al. v. T3Media Inc., No. 15-55630, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5894).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. - A California federal judge on April 3 entered final judgment in favor of a commercial general liability insurer after finding that it has no duty to defend its insured against an underlying trademark and trade dress infringement lawsuit because the insurance policy's intellectual property exclusion bars coverage for all claims (Secard Pools, Inc., et al. v. Kinsale Insurance Co., No. 16-02404, C.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47871).
LOS ANGELES - An asbestos plaintiff's disclaimer for any claims arising from conduct in a military or federal worksite precluded a boiler maker's removal of the case, but enough case law supports the move that sanctions are not warranted, a federal judge in California held March 31 (John Hukkanen, et al. v. Air and Liquid Systems Corp., et al., No. 17-2227, C.D. Calif.).
SAN DIEGO - After determining that the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) failed to show that a lawsuit in which the owner of a workout program asserted violations of the Lanham Act and California's unfair competition law (UCL) in relation to data published by NSCA did not constitute the type of "exceptional" case that would warrant certifying an interlocutory appeal, a California federal judge on April 3 rejected the association's request to appeal a summary judgment ruling (Crossfit Inc. v. National Strength and Conditioning Association, No. 14cv1191, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50719).