SAN JOSE, Calif. - A federal judge in California on June 5 dismissed a state unfair competition law (UCL) claim from a dispute over whether an enterprise mobility management (EMM) solutions provider disseminated marketing materials disparaging the quality of the plaintiff's mobile data and device management technologies but allowed claims brought under the Lanham Act to continue (Good Technology Corp., et al. v. MobileIron Inc., No. 12-5826, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73271).
NEW YORK - A defendant's "contorted interpretation" of the testimony and failure to account for existing asbestos-containing product inventory after it left the floor tile business keep it in an asbestos action, a New York justice held in an opinion posted June 5 (Bruce J. Bardone and Katherine Bardone v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., et al., No. 190134/2014, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.; 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1937).
PIERRE, S.D. - The South Dakota Supreme Court on June 3 affirmed a trial court's ruling awarding summary judgment to the contractor that installed siding, soffits and gutters on a couple's home, ruling that the plaintiffs were unable to show that their water infiltration claims were timely because they knew about the issue since 2002 but did not file suit until 2010 (Blair Gades, et al. v. Meyer Modernizing Co. Inc., No. 27209, S.D. Sup.; 2015 S.D. LEXIS 76).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. - A federal judge in New York on June 5 adopted a federal magistrate's report and recommendation that the federal judge grant preliminary approval of a settlement in a securities class action lawsuit, ruling that adopting the report and recommendation was proper because neither party objected to it (Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System v. Smithtown Bancorp, Inc., et al., Nos. 10-0864, E.D. N.Y.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73025).
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - A federal judge in Alabama on June 5 agreed to stay an insurance company's declaratory judgment suit against defendants accused of intentionally setting fire to an insured property during a criminal investigation of the defendants, finding that the stay would not prejudice the insurer and that allowing the cases to go on concurrently would result in significant overlap (EMC Property and Casualty Company v. 205 Customz LLC, et al., No. 15-cv-00293, N.D. Ala.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72949).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge in California on June 5 declined to dismiss a class action lawsuit accusing Pepsico Inc. of violating state laws, including the unfair competition law (UCL), by misleading the public about the levels of the harmful and carcinogenic chemical called 4-Methylimidazole (4-Mel) contained in its Pepsi beverages (Stacy Sciortino, et al. v. Pepsico Inc., Nos. 14-478, 14-713, 14-1099, 14-1105, 14-1192, 14-1193, 14-1316, 14-1316, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73336).
DETROIT - A patent dispute between two competitors in the field of video management software and systems will proceed, a Michigan federal judge ruled June 5 (JDS Technologies Inc. v. Avigilon USA Corporation Inc. and Avigilon Corp., No. 15-10385, E.D. Mich.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73217).
FORT MYERS, Fla. - A declaratory judgment defendant's counterclaim of inequitable conduct was dismissed June 5 by a Florida federal judge (Chico's Fas Inc. v. Andrea Clair et al., No. 13-792 M.D. Fla.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73052).
RALEIGH, N.C. - Defendants lack standing to block the depositions of three experts in an asbestos case, and no case or federal procedural deadline bars the plaintiff from discovery intended to impeach the defendants' expert, a federal judge in North Carolina held June 5 (Graham Yates and Becky Yates v. Ford Motor Co. and Honeywell International Inc., No. 12-752, E.D. N.C.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73102).
SYRACUSE, N.Y. - A federal judge in New York on June 4 denied a reinsurer's motion for summary judgment, holding that whether the reinsurance is capped at $1 million cannot be determined now because the reinsurance certificate is ambiguous (Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. R&Q Reinsurance Company, No. 13-cv-01332, N.D. N.Y.).
PASADENA, Calif. - A federal judge in California did not err in dismissing claims in a securities class action lawsuit because the lead plaintiff in the action failed to plead a material misrepresentation or scienter, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled June 5 (Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association v. Alphatec Holdings Inc., et al., No. 13-55661, 9th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on June 8 denied the State of Maine's petition challenging mandatory continued Medicaid coverage for older children under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's maintenance of effort requirements, according to the docket (Mary C. Mayhew, in her capacity as Secretary of the Maine Department of Health and Human Services v. Sylvia M. Burwell, et al., No. 14-992, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on June 8 granted a petition for writ of certiorari in a securities class action lawsuit seeking determination of whether, pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, a plaintiff must show not only that an opinion contained false and misleading statements but also that the speaker knew that the statements were false and misleading when made (Belmont Holdings Corp., et al. v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al., No. 14-1052, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on June 8 granted the petition for writ of certiorari in the appeal of a nearly $5.8 million verdict in favor of a class of Tyson Foods Inc. workers who brought a donning and doffing suit against the company (Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Peg Bouaphakeo, et al., No. 14-1146, U.S. Sup.).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A reinsurer on June 5 asked a federal court in Connecticut to stay an action that the reinsurer said is duplicative of a "first-filed" case in another federal court (Select Insurance Company v. Excalibur Reinsurance Corporation, f/k/a PMA Capital Insurance Company, No. 15-cv-00715, D. Conn.).
LOS ANGELES - Efforts by photographer Barry Rosen, who previously sued eBay Inc. over its "Verified Rights Owner" (VERO) program (Barry Rosen v. eBay Inc. and Does 1 through 1000, No. 07-7531, C.D. Calif.), to subpoena the online auction site pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) were partly thwarted by a California federal magistrate judge on June 5 (In re: DMCA Subpoena to eBay Inc., No. 15-922, S.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73341).
SAN FRANCISCO - Despite prevailing on allegations that it infringed the "Fitbug" trademark, Fitbit Inc. was denied an award of attorney fees June 5 by a California federal judge (Fitbug Ltd. v. Fitbit Inc., No. 13-1418, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73325).
PHILADELPHIA - Two insurance companies trying to overturn confirmation of Pittsburgh Corning Corp.'s (PCC) Chapter 11 plan of reorganization do not have standing to object to the plan and present objections that lack merit, so the confirmation ruling should be affirmed, PCC, its corporate shareholders and asbestos claimants argue in a June 4 brief in the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (In re: Pittsburgh Corning Corporation [Mt. McKinley Insurance Company, et al. v. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, et al.], No. 14-4329, 3rd Cir.).
PASADENA, Calif. - A filing date of a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 action was the date it was delivered to the court clerk, not the date the filing fee was ultimately paid, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled June 4, reversing a trial court's finding that a former restaurant cook's filing was untimely (Maria Escobedo v. Applebees, et al., No. 12-16244, 9th Cir.; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9313).
NEW YORK - A New York appeals panel on June 4 rejected a directors and officers liability insurer's argument that a merger litigation and an adversary proceeding constitute one continuous claim, finding that coverage for the adversary proceeding is not subject to a 2006-2007 policy's insured versus insured (IVI) exclusion (American Casualty Company of Reading, P.A., et al., v. Morris Gelb, et al., No. 15335 653280/11, N.Y. Sup., App. Div., 1st Dept.; 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4643).
NEW ORLEANS - A district court did not abuse its discretion in striking two expert reports for a couple alleging that they suffered carbon monoxide poisoning due to a faulty gas range, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held June 4 in a per curiam opinion, finding that there was too great a gap between the data presented and one expert's causation opinion and that the other expert was not qualified to offer his opinion on whether the range was defective (Devereaux Macy, et al. v. Whirlpool Corporation, No. 14-20603, 5th Cir.; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9338).