LOS ANGELES - A California jury on Jan. 9 awarded a man who was injured in a traffic accident $35 million after finding that the state transportation department knew about a hazard at an intersection in Los Angeles and that another driver was negligent and caused the crash (Nick Ekbatani v. CalTrans, et al., No. BC504902, Calif. Super., Los Angeles Co.).
SAN FRANCISCO - After finding that a borrower failed to amend her claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and declaratory relief, a California federal judge on Jan. 3 granted a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint against lenders in relation to a mortgage (Modesta Jacinto v. Ditech Financial LLC, et al., No. 16-cv-02815, N.D. Calif.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1012).
SAN FRANCISCO - Allegations that a defendant willfully infringed five patents will proceed in light of a Jan. 5 ruling by a California federal judge, in a dispute over quantum dot technology (Nanosys Inc. v. QD Vision Inc., No. 16-1957, N.D. Calif.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1085).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - After finding that a tenant's single federal claim failed, a California federal judge on Jan. 3 dismissed claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and the Rehabilitation Act against a landlord for lack of jurisdiction (Angelica Francis v. Accessible Space Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-1016, E.D. Calif.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 425).
SAN FRANCISCO - Shareholders in a securities class action lawsuit against a specialty oil products manufacturer and distributor, certain of its current and former officers and directors and underwriters of two stock offerings failed to plead falsity in making their federal securities law claims because their claims failed to meet the strict pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), a federal judge in California ruled Dec. 29 (Norfolk County Retirement System, et al. v. Solazyme Inc., et al., No. 15-2938, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179949).
NEW YORK - A federal judge in New York on Dec. 3 granted a pair of judgment creditors' motion to register a New York federal court's earlier order in a federal court in California where the party owing a $7.8 million arbitration award allegedly has substantial property (AmTrust North America, Inc. and Technology Insurance Company, Inc., as judgment creditors of Pacific Re, Inc. on behalf of its protected cell Pac Re 5-AT v. Safebuilt Insurance Services Inc., No. 16-cv-06033, S.D. N.Y.).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on Dec. 29 declined to stay pending appeal a preliminary injunction issued against a video on demand (VOD) provider, finding that the balance of hardships weighed in favor of the plaintiff movie studios that have demonstrated a likelihood of success on their copyright infringement claims against the VOD firm (Disney Enterprises Inc., et al. v. VidAngel Inc., No. 2:16-cv-04109, C.D. Calif.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - After finding no evidence to support a borrower's claims for wrongful foreclosure and violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL), a California federal magistrate judge on Dec. 22 recommended that his claims against a loan servicer be dismissed without leave to amend (Timothy Mulgrew Jr. v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, et al., No. 2:14cv2998, E.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177715).
SAN DIEGO - A California federal judge on Dec. 20 granted a clothing retailer's motion to dismiss a consumer's claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and claims for false advertising in relation to its pricing, finding that she failed to allege facts to support her class action claims (Courtney Dennis v. Ralph Lauren Corporation, No. 16cv1056, S.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176856).
LOS ANGELES - The defendants in a putative class action alleging that the University of Southern California's (USC) 403(b) retirement plans charged excessive fees moved Dec. 19 in California federal court for an order compelling individual, nonclass arbitration and dismissal or, in the alternative, staying all proceedings pending the resolution of arbitration (Allen L. Munro, et al. v. University of Southern California, et al., No. 2:16-cv-06191, C.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Dec. 21 made a small amendment to its Sept. 7 opinion in which it held that a California federal judge erred when he assumed the authority to decide in two class complaints whether arbitration agreements between Uber Technologies Inc. and its drivers were enforceable and denied a petition for rehearing en banc (Abdul Kadir Mohamed, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 15-16178, Ronald Gillette v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 15-16181, Abdul Kadir Mohamed, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 15-16250, 9th Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22898).
SAN FRANCISCO - An insurer argued in a federal court in California on Dec. 20 that its reinsurer's "first-to-file" argument is invalid because the reinsurer did not raise that defense in a previous motion to dismiss the insurer's breach of contract suit (The American Insurance Co. v. R&Q Reinsurance Co., No. 16-3044, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - Chevron Corp., which is being sued by Nigerian residents who contend that they have been injured as a result of an oil rig explosion, on Dec. 20 filed a brief in California federal court, arguing that the plaintiffs' motion to add photographs into evidence and file them under seal should be denied because they have not shown good cause to supplement the record (Natto Iyela Gbarabe v. Chevron Corporation, No. 14-173, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Dec. 19 determined that a disability claimant's brief return to part-time work does not extend the end of the plan's elimination period for benefits because the claimant's attempt to work in a part-time capacity only bolsters the conclusion that the claimant was still disabled when he returned to part-time work (Marlon Montoya v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., No. 14-2740, N.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175208).
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.).