LOS ANGELES - A California appellate panel on Jan. 29 "swipe[d] left" and reversed a trial court's ruling for Tinder Inc., finding that the lower court erred when it ruled that the dating application company did not violate the Unruh Act or California's unfair competition law (UCL) by charging older users more for its premium service than younger users (Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. B270172, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 3, 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 71).
LOS ANGELES - The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) on Jan. 26 sued the operators of vehicle dealerships in relation to the alleged use of its trademark, asserting causes of action for infringement and violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) (National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Ken Grody Management Inc., et al., No. 8:18-cv-00153, C.D. Calif.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - Qualcomm Inc. in a Jan.. 26 brief asks a California federal judge to affirm a $25,000-a-day discovery sanction that Apple Inc. called "unduly harsh" in a motion for relief, with Qualcomm arguing that the sanction amount is appropriate in light of Apple's pattern of discovery noncompliance in the antitrust lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission (Federal Trade Commission, et al. v. Qualcomm Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-00220, N.D. Calif.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - The Regents of the University of California on Jan. 26 urged the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to revisit a Jan. 12 order that denied the university a third extension of its deadline to file preliminary response to two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) by St. Jude Medical LLC (SJM) (St. Jude Medical LLC v. Regents of the University of California, Nos. IPR2017-01338, -01339, PTAB).
SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court on Jan. 29 upheld a decision from 1942 and ruled that an unnamed class member may not appeal a settlement or judgment under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 902 unless he or she has formally intervened before the action is final (Mike Hernandez, et al. v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., No. S233983, Calif. Sup., 2018 Cal. LEXIS 538).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on Jan. 25 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an Actos class action because the four plaintiffs previously settled their individual claims against the diabetes drug maker Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc. (Gary Bernor, et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc., et al., No. 12-04856, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13248).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on Jan. 25 rejected objections by an individual who was not a member of the class and granted final approval of a $1.6 million settlement to be paid by Vita-Mix Corp. and a staffing company to end a class complaint by workers alleging that they were misclassified and denied overtime wages and benefits (Rainoldo Gooding, et al. v. Vita-Mix Corporation, et al., No. 16-3898, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13252).
SAN DIEGO - After finding that the question of whether a retailer's price tags on shoes are misleading is a question of fact not appropriate for a motion to dismiss, a California federal judge on Jan. 25 refused to dismiss a purchaser's claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and other causes of action against it (Brittany Covell v. Nine West Holdings Inc., No. 3:17-cv-01371, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12437).
SAN FRANCISCO - A patent dispute over noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) ended in an infringement verdict Jan. 25 in a California federal court (Illumina Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics Inc., No. 12-5501, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - An anti-abortion group has sufficient interests in the outcome of a suit challenging rules broadening the exemptions to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) contraceptive mandate to allow permissive intervention, a federal judge in California held Jan. 26 (California, et al. v. Don J. Wright, et al., No. 17-5783, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13290).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on Jan. 24 dismissed a 401(k) plan participant's amended complaint, agreeing with the plan defendants' argument that the amended complaint fails to show that alleged excessive fees charged by the plan defendants were unjustified (D'Ann M. Patterson, et al. v. The Capital Group Companies Inc., et al., No. 17-4399, C.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES - Amended complaints from three drug rehabilitation centers contain the same insufficiently broad allegations regarding the formation of contracts and the services provided as a previously dismissed pleading, an insurer told a federal judge in California on Jan. 25 (Casa Bella Recovery International Inc. v. Humana Inc., et al., Nos. 17-1801, 17-1804, 17-1807, C.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES - Southern California Edison Co. and Edison International (collectively, SCE) own, operate and improperly maintained unsafe electrical infrastructure that caused a December 2017 fire in southern California that, in turn, triggered a January 2018 mudslide, killing nearly two dozen people and destroying homes and business, individuals and businesses allege in a Jan. 24 class complaint filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeking an unnamed amount for damages and destruction of property, loss of use of property, loss of business, other damages and attorney fees (Victoria Frost, et al. v. Southern California Edison Company, et al., No. BC691146, Calif. Super., Los Angeles Co.).
SAN FRANCISCO - Environmental advocacy groups on Jan. 23 filed a brief in California federal court arguing that Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke's decision to amend the Methane Waste Prevention Rule, which pertains to methane contamination by hydraulic fracturing companies, is "the second illegal step" in his "three step plan to ensure that oil and gas companies never have to comply with the duly promulgated" rule (Sierra Club, et al. v. Ryan Zinke, et al., No. 17-7187, N.D. Calif.).
SAN DIEGO - A California federal judge on Jan. 23 denied motions to remand and dismiss a class action filed by a consumer, who alleges that a surcharge added to a restaurant bill violates California's unfair competition law (UCL) and other laws, finding that the claims were based on factual allegations that were not before the court and that the amount in controversy exceeds the federal jurisdictional requirement (Kathleen Holt v. Noble House Hotels & Resorts Ltd., et al., No. 17cv2246, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10955).
OAKLAND, Calif. - Google LLC cannot claim immunity from terror-aiding claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), the family of a terror attack victim argues in a Jan. 22 brief opposing Google's renewed dismissal motion, telling a California federal court that the immunity provision of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) does not apply to ATA claims or to acts committed outside the United States (Reynaldo Gonzalez, et al. v. Google LLC, No. 4:16-cv-03282, N.D. Calif.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. - In a tentative ruling on defense demurrers and motions, a California state judge on Jan. 22 struck a state county's claim for restitution and attorney fees in an ongoing opioid lawsuit against various drug manufacturers (The People of the State of California, et al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 30-2014-00725287-CT-BT-CXC, Calif. Super., Orange Co.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - After finding that no federal claims remained against various lenders and property companies, a California federal judge on Jan. 22 remanded claims asserted by borrowers for breach of contract, fraud and violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) to a California state court (John Brooks, et al. v. FCI Lender Services Inc., No. 2:16-cv-02598, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9974).
SAN FRANCISCO - To prevail on their claims, plaintiffs must show that an insurer's interpretation of plan documents was implausible, a standard a class action challenging guidelines governing mental health and substance abuse coverage cannot meet, an insurer tells a federal judge in California in a Jan. 23 post-trial brief (David and Natasha Wit, et al. v. United Behavioral Health, No. 14-02346, Gary Alexander, et al. v. United Behavioral Health, No. 14-5337, N.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES - A California appeals court on Jan. 22 affirmed a trial court's ruling granting a motion to compel and to dismiss in favor of a casino, finding that claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and discrimination asserted by a former employee, whose employment was rescinded before she began work, were subject to arbitration (Brittney Lee v. California Commerce Club Inc., No. B276171, Cal. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 7, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 444).