SAN DIEGO - The elimination of the only federal claim in a suit brought by three parolees who allege that they were injured by bedbugs at their residential treatment facility renders the case a state court matter, not a federal court one, a California federal judge ruled Dec. 16, granting the plaintiffs' motion to remand (David Merrill, et al. v. Mental Health Systems, et al., No. 16-1090, S.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124245).
PHILADELPHIA - The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 20 affirmed a district court's confirmation of an arbitral award that granted a California corporation the rights to intellectual property and patent applications for the development of microalga products, finding that an arbitral panel did not exceed its authority when issuing the award (Roquette Freres S.A. v. Solazyme Inc., Nos. 15-4030 and 16-1308, 3rd Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 21 transferred another glyphosate injury lawsuit to the multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, adding another case in which the plaintiff alleges that his exposure to the Roundup herbicide caused him to develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) (In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, No. 2741, JPMDL).
SAN FRANCISCO - Volkswagen AG on Dec. 20 entered into an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection agency and state of California in which it will pay $225 million on environmental projects designed to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide and recall 83,000 3.0-liter diesel vehicles manufactured from 2009 through 2016 that were equipped with defeat devices to cheat emissions tests to resolve allegations in violation of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and California state law, according to a consent decree filed in California federal court (In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2672, Case No. 15-md-2672, N.D. Calif.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - With the lodging of a Dec. 16 complaint against Yahoo! Inc. in California federal court, at least four putative class actions have been filed since the internet firm's Dec. 14 announcement of a recently discovered hacking incident that compromised the personally identifiable information (PII) associated with 1 billion user accounts (Hector M. De Avila Gonzalez v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 5:16-cv-07206, N.D. Calif.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. - A California appeals panel on Dec. 15 affirmed a trial court judge's decision to deny without prejudice a motion to compel arbitration filed by homeowners accusing Froehlich Signature Homes Inc. of construction defects, finding that the consolidation of the plaintiffs' suit with similar actions did not cause judicial reference to become legally unavailable (Ebony Freeman, et al. v. Froehlich Signature Homes Inc., No. F073374, Calif. App., 5th Dist.; 2016 Calif. App. Unpub. LEXIS 9017).
PASADENA, Calif. - The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 14 affirmed a court's dismissal of claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and for violation of the Sherman Act against several banks, finding that some of a borrower's claims could not be based on vicarious liability and that she lacked standing (Helen Galope v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee under Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2007 Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC Trust 2007-BR4, No. 15-55246, 9th Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22210).
LOS ANGELES - The California Supreme Court on Dec. 15 partially reversed a judgment by a court of appeal to the extent it directed the trial court to hold further proceedings on a class's claims under the Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act, but affirmed a decision that a dealership's practice of backdating contracts did not violate the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA) (Raceway Ford Cases, Nos. E054517, E056595, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 2; 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 842).
SAN FRANCISCO - A jury empaneled before U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathaniel M. Cousins of the Northern District of California sided squarely against Apple Inc. on Dec. 15, deeming the tech giant an infringer of two valid patents and awarding Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.L. $7.3 million in reasonable royalty damages following a six-day trial (Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.L. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-5008, N.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES - A California appellate court on Dec. 13 found that a trial court did not err when it granted a motion filed by Mercedes-Benz USA Inc. for a new trial in relation to a jury verdict issued in favor of the purchaser of an allegedly defective vehicle, finding that she failed to unequivocally prove that she qualified for a revocation remedy under the Song-Beverly Act (Wassan Benny v. Sonic Santa Monica M., Inc., et al., No. B265677, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 8).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - Claims of copyright and patent infringement brought by Cisco Systems Inc. against a competitor in the Ethernet switch market were rejected in a California federal jury's verdict Dec. 14, with the jury deeming the material not copyright protectable as scenes a faire and finding that Cisco failed to establish any infringement of its asserted command interface patent (Cisco Systems Inc. v. Arista Networks Inc., No. 14-5344, N.D. Calif.).
PASADENA, Calif. - The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 13 found that a corporation that makes plastics failed to show that a company falsely advertised that its product met a military specification, affirming dismissal of its claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and false advertising (Caltex Plastics v. Elkay Plastics Company Inc., No. 15-55331, 9th Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22134).
SAN FRANCISCO - Monsanto Co. and its affiliates on Dec. 12 filed a brief in California federal court, arguing that three lawsuits filed by three cities that allege damages caused by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in drinking water should be dismissed because there is an "irreconcilable gap" between the area where the alleged damage exists and the "damaged" city-owned storm water systems that are at the center of the lawsuit (City of San Jose v. Monsanto Co., et al., No. 15-03178; City of Oakland v. Monsanto Co., et al., No. 15-05152; and City of Berkeley v. Monsanto Co., et al., No. 16-00071, N.D. Calif.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - The plaintiffs in a class action against computer manufacturer Lenovo (United States) Inc. on Dec. 9 moved in California federal court for preliminary approval of a settlement with the co-defendant that designed the spyware at the heart of the lawsuit's computer fraud and invasion of privacy claims (In Re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, No. 5:15-cv-02624, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A retirement system failed to plead any material misrepresentations or omissions in pleading its federal securities law claims against a seller of hybrid data storage products and certain of its executive officers, but it may be able to cure its deficiencies with amendment of its complaint, a federal judge in California ruled Dec. 9 (In re Nimble Storage Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-5803, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170924).
LOS ANGELES - After finding that a borrower failed to show that he had standing to challenge the foreclosure of a property, a California court on Dec. 12 affirmed a trial court's decision to grant a demurrer in favor of Citibank N.A. (Marc I. Rosenthal v. Citibank N.A., et al., No. B263465, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 7; 2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8947).
LOS ANGELES - After finding that an investor adequately pleaded that financial advisers deliberately made misrepresentations and concealed information about the risks associated with investments, a California federal judge on Dec. 9 entered a default ruling in her favor for $1,070,972.88 (Julie Marshall v. Platinum Global Advisors, LLC, et al., No. 16-672, C.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171588.)
SAN DIEGO - Affirming two lower courts' rulings, the California Supreme Court on Dec. 12 determined that online travel companies (OTCs) do not meet the definition of hotel "operators" in a San Diego tax ordinance and, thus, are not liable for paying transient occupancy tax amounts assessed by the city on hotel customers (In Re Transient Occupancy Tax Cases, No. S218400, Calif. Sup.; 2016 Cal. LEXIS 9592).