FRESNO, Calif. - In an unpublished opinion, a California appeals court on Aug. 10 affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction in a suit accusing an independent practice association (IPA) of violating the unfair competition law (UCL) by allegedly sending threatening notices and ultimatums to primary care physicians to dissuade them from contracting with another medical group (Saint Agnes Medical Center, et al. v. Sante Community Physicians IPA Medical Group, No. F069510, Calif. App., 5th Dist.; 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5697).
PHOENIX - A dispute over intellectual property covering low-priced, ornamental jewelry will proceed with an antitrust counterclaim in place, thanks to an Aug. 7 ruling by an Arizona federal judge (Origami Owl LLC v. West Coast Charms LLC et al., No. 15-110, D. Ariz.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103755).
ATLANTA - A Florida federal judge did not err in dismissing, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), allegations that The Estee Lauder Cos. Inc. violated the Sherman Act, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 7 (Duty Free Americas Inc. v. The Estee Lauder Companies Inc., No. 14-11853, 11th Cir.; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13837).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A California federal judge on Aug. 5 dismissed with leave to amend a class action complaint accusing an appliance manufacturer of knowingly selling defective ovens in violation of state laws, including the unfair competition law (UCL) (William Burdt v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 15-1563, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102761).
LOS ANGELES - A federal judge in California on Aug. 5 declined to dismiss a class action lawsuit accusing a credit-building and credibility solutions business of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the state's unfair competition law (UCL) by making repeated unwanted calls to the plaintiff's cellular phone despite requests to be placed on a "do-not-call" list and a cease-and-desist letter (Jeffrey A. Thomas v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., No. 15-3194, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103322).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - In dismissing a class action lawsuit with leave to amend, a California federal judge on Aug. 6 held that a Chinese restaurant did not discriminate or violate the state's unfair competition law (UCL) by charging a higher price for gluten-free menu items than for its regular menu items (Anna Marie Phillips v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro Inc., No. 15-344, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103481).
LOS ANGELES - A federal judge in California on Aug. 3 declined to dismiss a purported class action complaint alleging that homeopathic products falsely advertised that they were effective treatments for gas, colic and reflux problems in infants in violation of the state's unfair competition law (UCL), saying the defendants raised arguments not appropriate for a motion to dismiss (Wannita Thesier-Hendricks v. TJL Enterprises Inc., et al., No. 15-477, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101710).
SAN DIEGO - A federal judge in California on July 30 left portions of claims for violations of the state's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and unfair competition law (UCL), as well as fraud and negligent misrepresentation, but dismissed all other claims in a class action suit accusing the manufacturer of a dog bone product of selling items not safe for its intended purpose (Khristie Reed v. Dynamic Pet Products, et al., No. 15-987, S.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100540).
SAN FRANCISCO - Allegations that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) violates the Sherman Act by monopolizing the market for top-level domains (TLDs) like ".com" and ".net" were properly dismissed, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled July 31 (name.space Inc. v. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, No. 13-55553, 9th Cir.; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13360).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A federal judge in California on July 30 denied the plaintiffs' third motion for class certification in a case accusing Del Monte Foods Inc. of violating consumer protection statutes, including the state's unfair competition law (UCL) in its packaging of several tomato and fruit products (Michael Kosta, et al. v. Del Monte Foods Inc., No. 12-1722, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99892).
LOS ANGELES - A lawsuit filed by an insurance claims examiner who alleges that she and other similarly situated examiners were improperly classified as exempt from receiving overtime is not appropriate to proceed as a class action because individual issues predominate, a California appellate panel ruled July 27, affirming a trial court's ruling (Anna Marie Gentile v. Keenan & Associates, No. B253097, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 3; 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5256).
LOS ANGELES - After finding no diversity jurisdiction, a California federal judge on July 27 granted a motion to remand a lawsuit filed against numerous banks in relation to their handling of a loan modification request to a state court (Guadalupe M. Roman, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. 15-4344, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97759).
OAKLAND, Calif. - After finding that a property owner failed to allege facts to show that she had standing to bring a claim for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) or that a bank had a legal duty to her, a California federal judge on July 27 dismissed her claims with leave to amend (Rosemary Greene v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 15-00048, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98454).
FRESNO, Calif. - A federal judge in California on July 24 dismissed with leave to amend claims under the state's False Advertising Law (FAL) and unfair competition law (UCL) as they related to an omission by the defendant that additional fees may be imposed after the purchase of an application used to control all the user's computers from one iPad or iPhone (Darren Handy v. Logmein Inc., No. 14-1355, E.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97021).
SAN DIEGO - In ruling on a motion to dismiss in a class action lawsuit accusing the manufacturer of Maker's Mark whiskey of deceptive advertising and business practices, a federal judge in California on July 27 dismissed state unfair competition law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) claims based on failure to plausibly allege likelihood of deception but allowed UCL and FAL claims based on the safe harbor doctrine to continue (Safora Nowrouzi, et al. v. Maker's Mark Distillery Inc., No. 14-2885, S.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97752).
PHILADELPHIA - U.S. Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 27 agreed to certify a class of direct purchaser plaintiffs in a long-running antitrust dispute over pay-for-delay agreements relating to generic modafinil (King Drug Company of Florence, Inc., et al. v. Cephalon, Inc., et al., No. 2:06-cv-1797, E.D. Pa.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge in California on July 23 granted preliminary approval of a $12 million settlement in a class action lawsuit accusing a tuna manufacturer and distributor of under-filling its products in violation of the state's unfair competition law (UCL) and approved the plaintiff's plan of allocation over the defendant's objections (Patrick Hendricks v. Starkist Co., No. 13-729, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96390).
SAN FRANCISCO - Retail establishments do not have standing to bring claims on their own behalf as indirect purchasers and have not adequately pleaded that they are entitled to injunctive relief in a pay-for-delay case, a California federal judge ruled July 17, while permitting the grocery stores an opportunity to amend their complaint (United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, et al. v. Teikoku Pharma USA Inc., et al., No. 14-02521, N.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A divided panel of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 21 affirmed dismissal of California state law unfair competition and conversion claims, but vacated a California federal judge's interpretation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) as permitting commercial marketing of a biologic before receiving U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval (Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al., No. 15-1499, Fed. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO - In a July 20 brief opposing dismissal, a former driver for Uber Technologies Inc. asserts that he was a victim of identity theft as a result of a data breach experienced by his former employer and, therefore, he has sustained an injury sufficient to established standing to bring his class action complaint against Uber (Sasha Antman v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01175, N.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES - A recent decision by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on the standard of proof in false advertising actions does not provide a basis for dismissing a suit alleging that the manufacturer of infant formula made false representations and engaged in misleading practices in the marketing of its product, a federal judge in California ruled July 14 (Oula Zakaria v. Gerber Products Co., et al., No. 15-200, C.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES - In a pair of July 10 in chambers orders, a California federal magistrate judge found deposition-related violations by two lawyer placement firms embroiled in a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit, awarding sanctions to each (Lateral Link Group LLC v. Habeas Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-05695, C.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES - Match.com subscribers who claim that they were not provided with the proper notice about their rights to cancel their subscriptions must arbitrate their claims, a California federal judge ruled July 10 (Zeke Graf v. Match.com, LLC, No. 15-3911, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90061).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge in California on July 13 dismissed without prejudice most claims in a class action complaint accusing a beverage manufacturer of placing misleading antioxidant-related statements on their products' labels in violation of the state's unfair competition law (UCL) for failure to meet pleading requirements but said that some of the claims arising from statements on the bottles were preempted and dismissed them with prejudice (Dorinda Vassigh, et al. v. Bai Brands, No. 14-5127, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90675).