FRESNO, Calif. - Having previously excluded an expert's report and testimony as to dollar figures of his aggregate damages analysis for rest break premiums, meal period premiums and underpaid meal premium classes for damages pursuant to California Labor Code Section 226.7, a California federal magistrate judge on March 2 precluded plaintiffs from eliciting testimony from the defendant's expert as to the damage estimates (Sandrika Medlock, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., et al., No. 07-01314, E.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26350).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge in California on March 4 granted preliminary approval of a settlement in a securities class action lawsuit against a company and certain of its executive officers, ruling that the settlement meets all statutory requirements for settlement (In re Vocera Communications Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 13-3567, N.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES - A California appeals court panel on March 3 found nothing "speculative or illogical" about "every exposure" testimony on which a $2 million asbestos verdict was built (Nickole Davis, as personal representative etc. v. Honeywell International Inc., No. B256793, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 4; 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 169).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - Facebook Inc. filed a motion for a protective order March 2 in California federal court, asserting that a four-year-old privacy suit over its purported use of tracking cookies should be stayed pending resolution of the social network's second dismissal motion (In re: Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314, N.D. Calif.).
SAN DIEGO - A California federal judge on March 1 granted a resort employee's motion to stay a case in which he asserted claims for violation of California's Labor Code and unfair competition law (UCL) and to compel arbitration under his employment agreement (Frank Palmer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Omni Hotel Management Corporation, et al., No. 15cv1527, S.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26464).
SAN DIEGO - Whether an insurer timely and reasonably accepted tender of an additional insured's construction defects claim presents a question of fact not properly resolved on a motion to dismiss, a California federal judge ruled March 2, declining to dismiss counterclaims for breach of contract and bad faith (St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. v. McMillin Homes Construction, Inc., et al., No. 15-1548, S.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26461).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A California federal judge on Feb. 29 denied a motion filed by a woman objecting to a class settlement reached with her former employer seeking to certify a judgment settling the class claims in the case prior to the resolution of the individual claims so that she can file an immediate appeal (Danette M. Moore, et al. v. Petsmart, Inc., No. 12-3577, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24836).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Dismissal of counterclaims for insurance breach of contract and bad faith is not proper, a federal judge in California ruled March 1, because insureds have pleaded sufficient allegations to support their claims (Lancer Insurance Co. v. Alpha Dyno Nobel, et al., No. 14-2018, E.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25450).
MADISON, Wis. - The majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court on March 1 determined that two insurers have no duty to cover claims related to damages caused by the inclusion of a defective ingredient in a probiotic supplement because the inclusion of the defective ingredient did not damage other property and did not result in loss of use of property (Wisconsin Pharmacal LLC v. Nebraska Cultures of California Inc., et al., Nos. 2013AP613, 2013AP687, Wis. Sup.; 2016 Wisc. LEXIS 12).
LOS ANGELES - An insured knew by 2008 that at least one insured structure had suffered damage from a neighbor's negligent construction activities but failed to timely notify the insurer or to file suit within the policy's two-year contractual limitations provision, a California appeals panel held Feb. 29, affirming summary judgment to the insurer (Anthony N. Kling as Trustee of the Anthony N. Kling Trust of 1997 v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, No. B260738, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 4; 2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1458).
SAN FRANCISCO - A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a Feb. 29 unpublished ruling upheld a California federal judge's decision to dissolve a preliminary injunction based upon a law firm's unclean hands in advertising itself as a "single firm" that is "national" in reach (The Cochran Firm P.C. v. Cochran Firm Los Angeles LLP and Randy McMurray, No. 15-55816, 9th Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3682).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. - In its closely watched dispute with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Apple Inc. on March 2 filed a notice of supplemental authority, asking a California federal court to consider a just-decided New York federal case that also pertained to the U.S. government seeking to compel Apple to provide access to a suspect's seized iPhone under the All Writs Act (In the matter of the search of an Apple iPhone seized during the execution of a search warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, California License Plate 35KGD203, No. 5:16-cm-00010, C.D. Calif.).
SAN DIEGO - A California federal judge on Feb. 29 dismissed counterclaims asserted by a restaurant and its owners for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and fraud, finding that they failed to assert their allegations related to the alleged unlawful broadcast of a program with specificity, but granted them leave to amend (Joe Hand Promotions Inc. v. Marc S. Bragg, et al., No. 13-cv-02725, S.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24752).
BALTIMORE - A Maryland federal judge on Feb. 25 granted a motion to transfer a class complaint filed by former National Football League players against several dozen clubs over the use of prescription medications to a California federal court where the same counsel previously filed a related case against the NFL (Etopia Evans, et al. v. Arizona Cardinals Football Club, LLC, et al., No. 15-1457, D. Md.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23525).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California appellate panel on Feb. 29 declined an asbestos-friction defendant's request for rehearing after reversing summary judgment in favor of it and two other companies, according to the court's docket (Geraldine Bierner Lepore, et al. v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., et al., No. A137451, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 4).
LOS ANGELES - Resolution of a primary insurer's coverage lawsuit against an excess insurer for a mutual insured's water damage claims would require the "needless determination of state law issues and would be duplicative of, and possibly inconsistent with, state court proceedings," a California federal judge ruled Feb. 26, granting a motion to remand (James River Insurance Co. v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Co., No. 15-09972, C.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24705).
SANTA ANA, Calif. - A California appeals panel on Feb. 26 held that an insurer did not satisfy its initial burden of demonstrating that it could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of its agent, reversing judgment on all but one claim in a dispute arising from the sale of $10 million in life insurance policies (Garret Weyand v. Union Central Life Insurance Co., No. G051071, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3; 2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1422).
SAN FRANCISCO - After finding no evidence to support an estate's claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL), breach of contract and declaratory relief, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 25 affirmed a district court's decision to grant a motion to dismiss the case (Robert Chandler, as representative of the estate of Rosemary S. Chandler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., No. 14-15069, 9th Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3375).
SALT LAKE CITY - Efforts by Microsoft Corp. to transfer allegations of patent infringement to Washington or California federal court were unsuccessful Feb. 26, when a Utah federal judge found that the software giant "does not provide evidence showing how trial in Utah will not be easy, expeditious or economical" (Corel Software LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 15-528, D. Utah.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24003).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge's dismissal with prejudice of an infringement action based upon his determination that a trademark assignment was invalid in gross was reversed and remanded Feb. 26 by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Nina Parkinson v. Robanda International Inc., No. 14-55028, 9th Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3511).