SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Feb. 28 refused to grant a retailer's motion to dismiss claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and for false advertising, but granted dismissal with leave to amend in relation to claims for products that he did not purchase (William Rushing v. Williams-Sonoma Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-01421, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28227).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - In a Feb. 23 motion in California federal court, the plaintiffs in a putative class action over Google Inc.'s AdWords program seek preliminary approval of a $22.5 million settlement of their claims against the internet giant under California's unfair competition law (UCL) and false advertising law (FAL) (In Re Google AdWords Litigation, No. 5:08-cv-03369, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - The rights of the public, the press and the class she is seeking to represent outweigh the privacy interests of the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit accusing NFL Enterprises LLC and individual teams of conspiring to suppress the wages of cheerleaders, a California federal judge ruled Feb. 22, denying the plaintiff's motion to proceed using a pseudonym (Jane Doe, et al. v. NFL Enterprises LLC, et al., No. 17-496, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24991).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on Feb. 21 ordered a car manufacturer to show cause as to why its claims for violation of California's unfair competition law and trademark infringement should not be transferred to another venue (BMW of North America, LLC, et al. v. Michael Chambers, et al., No. 17-0846, C.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24096).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Feb. 21 refused to strike a claim for punitive damages asserted by the purchaser of an extension ladder who alleges that he fell and suffered serious injuries after it collapsed (William Evans v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-07191, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24171).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California appellate panel on Feb. 17 affirmed a ruling in favor of various lenders, finding that property owners failed to show that they had standing to challenge a foreclosure under a pooling and services agreement (Hanneke C. Gary R. Lohse, v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al., No. A142814, Calif. App., 1st App., Div. 4, 2017 Cal. App. Unpub LEXIS 1210).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Feb. 16 granted final approval of a nearly $344,000 settlement to be paid to a class of Uber Technologies Inc. customers who allege that Uber wrongfully retained a portion of gratuity charges paid by passengers (Caren Ehret, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 14-113, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22586).
FRESNO, Calif. - A California federal judge on Feb. 15 issued his findings of fact and conclusions of law on causes of action asserted by truck drivers in relation to wage and rest break claims, finding that judgment should be entered in favor of a transport company on all of its claims (Todd Shook, et al. v. Indian River Transport Co., No. 1:14-1415, E.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21522).
ORLANDO, Fla. - Judgment was entered in favor of insurers on Feb. 15, one day after a Florida federal judge found that there is no further coverage owed to insureds for lawsuits alleging that they have intentionally engaged in wrongful antitrust and monopolizing conduct in an effort to dominate the health care service industry (Health First Inc., et al. v. Capitol Specialty Insurance Corporation, et al., No. 15-718, M.D. Fla., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20320).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - After finding that the owners of interests in timeshare units at Lake Tahoe pleaded sufficient facts to support their claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims in relation to a diminished value in the properties, a California federal judge on Feb. 13 denied a motion filed by the owners and managers of the complex to dismiss the case (Thomas F. Reiser Jr., et al. v. Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation, No. 2:16-cv-00237, E.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20127).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A California federal judge on Feb. 10 granted an exclusive licensee's motion to remand its claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims related to the alleged unauthorized use of a trademark, finding that it did not waive its right to remand the action (SWC Inc. v. Elite Promo Inc., No. 16-cv-07071, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19513).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A customer of Yahoo! Inc.'s small business services filed a putative class action complaint against the firm Feb. 8 in California federal court, accusing the internet firm of negligence, breach of contract and unfair competition related to two recently announced data breaches that exposed customers' personally identifiable information (PII) (Brian Neff v. Yahoo! Inc. et al., No. 5:17-cv-00641, N.D. Calif.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A federal judge in California on Feb. 7 granted leave for an electronics company to amend its complaint to add a claim under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) (VIA Technologies, Inc., et al. v. ASUS Computer International, et al., No. 14-cv-03586, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17384).
SAN DIEGO - A California federal judge on Feb. 7 refused to dismiss a hair product company's claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and intentional interference with contractual relations, finding that a retailer had notice that it was potentially selling unauthorized products online and that it showed that a valid contract exists (Unite Eurotherapy Inc. v. Walgreens Co., et al., No. 16-cv-01706, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18116).
NEW YORK - A New York federal judge's decision to dismiss allegations that Takeda America Holdings Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. Inc., Takeda Development Center Americas Inc. and Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. (Takeda, collectively) violated state law analogs of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2, by preventing competitors from marketing a generic version of the diabetes drug ACTOS was partly vacated by the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Feb. 8 (In re: ACTOS End-Payor Antitrust Litigaiton, No. 15-3364, 2nd Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2291).
LOS ANGELES - A California appeals court on Feb. 7 affirmed a district court's decision to deny a hospital's motion to compel arbitration of numerous class action claims asserted against it by a former nurse, finding that the nurse did not waive her right to assert her claims in a judicial forum under her collective bargaining agreement (CBA) (Tanya Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, No. B267975, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 4, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 90).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Feb. 3 granted an employee's motion to remand her class action claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and various labor codes, finding that her employer failed to show that the amount in controversy would exceed $5 million under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) (Jasmine Miller v. A-1 Express Delivery Services Inc., No. 16-cv-06251, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15795).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A California court on Feb. 1 affirmed a trial court's decision to dismiss numerous claims against several mortgage entities in relation to the assignment of a loan, finding that the borrowers failed to submit any cause of action to support the theories that they relied on (Andrew Kalnoki, et al. v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC, et al., Nos. C073207, C075062, C079144, Calif. App., 3rd Dist., 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 74).
BOSTON - Eleven diabetics on Jan. 30 filed a class action complaint alleging that Sanofi U.S., Novo Nordisk Inc. and Eli Lilly and Co. are raising their prices for insulin out of reach for some diabetics to create a "spread" between the drugs' "list price" and its wholesale price to stay on the formularies of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) (Donald Chaires, et al. v. Sanofi U.S., et al., No. 17-10158, D. Mass.).
PASADENA, Calif. - After finding that a member of a gym expressly consented to receiving text messages and that he lacked standing to assert violations of California business and professions codes, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 30 affirmed a summary judgment ruling for the owners of the gym and its marketing firm (Bradley Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group LLC, et al., No. 14-55980, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1591).
NEWARK, N.J. - Three pediatric medical practices on Jan. 27 asked a New Jersey federal court to approve a $61.5 million cash settlement of claims alleging that drug maker Sanofi Pasteur Inc. and a subsidiary engaged in anti-competitive behavior by bundling its Menactra quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine (MCV4) with other pediatric vaccines to keep another meningitis vaccine from cutting into Sanofi's 100 percent market share (Adriana M. Castro, M.D., P.A., et al. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., No. 11-7178, D. N.J.).
SAN FRANCISCO - In a Jan. 26 brief, Apple Inc. asks the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to rehear, or rehear en banc, a putative class action alleging price fixing and monopolization related to the selling of iPhone apps in its App Store, arguing that a panel decision did not properly apply controlling case law and unnecessarily created a circuit split (In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, No. 14-15000, 9th Cir.).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on Jan. 24 granted a borrower's motion to remand his lawsuit in which he asserted numerous causes of action against a lender related to the denial of a loan modification, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction (David L. Tripp II v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 8:16-cv-1414, C.D. Calif.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9922).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Jan. 24 dismissed proposed class action claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims, finding that a consumer failed to show that she purchased prawns from a retailer that were provided by two food product companies that produced the prawns using illegal labor practices (Monica Sud, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., No. 15-cv-03783, N.D. Calif.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9943).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A California federal judge on Jan. 20 dismissed class action claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL), negligence and other causes of action related to a data breach of a real estate trust's computer system, finding that former tenants of the trust's property failed to show that they had standing to sue (Mark Foster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Essex Property Inc., No. .5:14-cv-05531, N.D. Calif.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8373).