LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
    Federal Judge Certifies Class Of Health Care Purchasers In Hospital Merger Case

    CHICAGO - End payers who purchased inpatient and outpatient health care services directly from NorthShore University HealthSystem and alleged that NorthShore illegally monopolized the market for such services following the merger of hospitals demonstrated that class adjudication of the antitrust claims was superior, a federal judge in Illinois ruled Dec. 10 in granting the purchasers' motion for class certification (In re: Evanston Northwestern Corporation Antitrust Litigation, No. 07-cv-04446, N.D. Ill.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173794).

    California Top Court Grants, Defers Briefing In Truck Employee Preemption Case

    LOS ANGELES - According to its docket, the California Supreme Court on Dec. 11 granted an employee's petition for review and deferred briefing in his class action against a trucking company pending a ruling in People v. Pac Anchor Transportation Inc. (S194388) (Salvador Rodriguez, et al. v. RWA Trucking Co. Inc., No. S214150, Calif. Sup.).

    Magistrate: 'Pure And Natural' Diapers Run Afoul Of Reasonable Consumer Standard

    SAN FRANCISCO - A reasonable consumer would expect diapers advertised as "pure and natural" to be free from non-natural materials, and the manufacturer's disclosures elsewhere on the package do not remedy the ambiguity, a federal magistrate judge held Dec. 10 in largely allowing California unfair competition law (UCL) claims to proceed (Dianna Jou, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., et al., No. 13-3075, N.D. Calif.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173216).

    Florida Settlement, Claim's Implausibility Bar 'Soymilk' Action, Judge Says

    SAN FRANCISCO - Settlement of a Florida action bars California unfair competition law claims involving yogurt and cane juice labeling claims, and it is "implausible" that a reasonable consumer would confuse "soymilk" for a dairy beverage, a federal judge held Dec. 10 (Alex Ang and Kevin Avoy, et al. v. Whitewave Foods Co., et al., No. 13-1953, N.D. Calif.).

    Affirmative Defenses In Tobacco Trademark Suit Struck For Lack Of Facts

    SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge has struck the affirmative defenses of a tobacco distributor sued for trade mark infringement, saying in a Dec. 5 opinion that the defendant had provided no factual underpinning for the defenses (Starbuzz Tobacco Inc. v. Fuad Naji Saeed, No. 3:13-cv-03837-SI, N.D. Calif.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171857).

    Parts Firm's Keyword Ads Trademark Claims Dismissed Against Google, Not Yahoo

    SAN DIEGO - In a pair of Dec. 4 rulings, a California federal judge dismissed all of an Internet-based automotive parts retailer's trademark infringement claims against search engine provider Google Inc. as barred by laches and precluded by the Communications Decency Act (CDA) while permitting a federal infringement claim against rival search engine provider Yahoo! Inc. to proceed (Parts.com LLC v. Google Inc., No. 3:13-cv-01074, and Parts.com LLC v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 3:13-cv-01078, S.D. Calif.).

    U.S. High Court Denies Stay Of American Airlines Merger With US Airways

    WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Dec. 8 denied an emergency application by individual airline customers seeking to prevent the merger of bankrupt American Airlines Inc. and US Airways Group Inc. The customers had argued that the merger violates federal antitrust laws (Carolyn Fjord v. AMR Corporation, No.13A579, U.S. Sup.).

    Airline Customers: American Airlines Merger Approval Should Be Stayed For Appeal

    NEW YORK - The class action plaintiffs that sued bankrupt AMR Corp., the parent company of American Airlines, on Dec. 4 filed a brief in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York arguing that the Bankruptcy Court should stay its decision approving the merger of American Airlines and US Airways Group Inc. pending appeal (Carolyn Fjord, et al. v. AMR Corporation, et al. $(In Re: AMR Corporation$), no. 11-15463, Adv. No. 13-01392, Chapter 11, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).

    Magistrate: No Injury From Information Use, But Bandwidth Use Satisfies Standard

    SAN FRANCISCO - Google Inc.'s use of personally identifiable information (PII) does not provide Article III standing, but apps purchased through its store that utilized battery power and bandwidth sending that information do, a federal magistrate judge held Dec. 3 in also dismissing California unfair competition law (UCL) claims (In re Google Inc. privacy policy litigation, No. 12-1382, N.D. Calif.).

    High Court Asks Federal Government For Its View In Antitrust Preemption Case

    WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 2 invited the solicitor general to file a brief expressing the views of the United States regarding whether to grant review of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that the Natural Gas Act (NGA) does not preempt state law claims asserted by retail purchasers of natural gas (In re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation $(ONEOK, Inc., et al. v. Learjet, Inc.$), No. 13-271, U.S. Sup.).

    California Federal Judge Rejects Attorney Fees As Basis For Competition Law Injury

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A couple may not rely on attorney fees incurred in pursuing a California unfair competition law (UCL) action alleging wrongful foreclosure to satisfy the injury standard, a federal judge held in an opinion posted Nov. 27 (Josue Rios and Yolanda Rios v. Bank of America d/b/a Countrywide Home Loans Inc., et al., No. 12-2439, E.D. Calif.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169486).

    Federal Judge Finds Competition Law Lending Allegations Lacking

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A homeowner lacks sufficient allegations of injury or reliance to sustain his California unfair competition law (UCL) claim against his lender, a federal judge held in an opinion posted Nov. 27 (David Sears v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. 13-1664, E.D. Calif.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169507).

    Judge: Attorney Fees Constitute Injury; Standing For Injunctive Relief Lacking

    SAN FRANCISCO - Attorney fees incurred in defending against unenforceable noncompete agreements constitute a California unfair competition law (UCL) injury but do not provide Article III standing for injunctive relief, a federal judge held Dec. 2 in granting an employer's motion for reconsideration (Imtiaz Khan, et al. v. K3 Pure Solutions LP, et al., No. 12-5526, N.D. Calif.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169855).

    Judge Dismisses Privacy, Unfair Competition Class Action Over IPhone Apps

    SAN JOSE, Calif. - The named plaintiffs in a putative class action against Apple Inc. failed to establish their standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution or two California statutes, a California federal judge found Nov. 25, disposing of their claims related to Apple's purported collection of users' personal data via applications (apps) for its iPhones and other "iDevices" (In Re iPhone Application Litigation, No. 5:11-md-02250, N.D. Calif.).

    Consumer Class Action Filed Against 23andMe For Genetic Test Kit Refunds

    SAN DIEGO - A California resident on Nov. 27 filed a national class action lawsuit seeking refunds for what it says is a misleadingly advertised and unapproved at-home genetic testing kit called 23andMe (Lisa Casey, et al. v. 23andMe, INC., et al., No. 13-2847, S.D. Calif.).

    Bankruptcy Judge Approves DOJ, American Airlines Settlement Ending Merger Lawsuit

    NEW YORK - The federal bankruptcy judge presiding over the Chapter 11 case of AMR Corp., the parent company of American Airlines Inc., on Nov. 27 approved a settlement between American Airlines and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that will allow the airline to merge with US Airways Inc. and emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy (In Re: AMR Corporation, No. 11-15463, Chapter 11, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).

    9th Circuit: $25 Payment Not Linked To Any Unlawful Conduct

    SAN FRANCISCO - A man's payment came in response to a letter explaining the debt, breaking the causal connection to any unlawful conduct based on an allegedly deficient demand for payment, a Ninth Circuit panel held Nov. 22 in affirming dismissal of California unfair competition law (UCL) claims (Roderick Wright, et al. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., No. 12-55319, 9th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23558).

    9th Circuit: Prius Gas Tank Suit Lacking, Competition Law Standing Questionable

    SAN FRANCISCO - Two Pennsylvania residents likely lack standing to pursue their California unfair competition law (UCL) action over an automobile manufacturer's choice of gas tank material but also fail to state a claim under the statute, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held Nov. 20 (Henry Troup; Veronica Troup v. Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., No. 11-56637, 9th Cir.).

    9th Circuit Revives Product Liability Claims Against Food Manufacturer

    SAN FRANCISCO - The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 18 remanded a product liability action involving an allegedly deceptively marketed snack food product, agreeing that the plaintiff should be allowed to amend his class action complaint (Lee Cheramie v. HBB LLC, No. 12-55148, 9th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23222).

    Competition Law Case Involving Nutrition Products Settles For $5,275,000

    SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge on Nov. 18 granted preliminarily approval of a settlement involving unfair competition law (UCL) claims over Cytosport Inc.'s characterization of Muscle Milk products as "healthy" (Claire Delacruz, et al. v. Cytosport Inc., No. 11-3532, N.D. Calif.).

    Apple Seeks Dismissal Of States' Damages Action In E-Books Conspiracy Litigation

    NEW YORK - Apple Inc. on Nov. 15 moved to dismiss an action by the attorneys general of several states which alleges that Apple conspired with publishers to fix prices of electronic books, arguing that the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the states' damages action against Apple because the states have not suffered any injury-in-fact and, therefore, do not have constitutional standing (In re Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, 11-MD-2293, S.D. N.Y. $(State of Texas, et al. v. Penguin Group (USA) Inc., et al., No. 12 Civ. 3394, S.D. N.Y.$)).

    California Cipro Purchasers' Settlement With Bayer Over Pay-For-Delay Is Approved

    SAN DIEGO - A judge in California on Nov. 15 granted final approval to a $74 million cash settlement between Bayer Corp. and Bayer AG (collectively, Bayer) and California purchasers of the antibiotic Cipro and third-party payers who reimbursed for California purchases of Cipro on claims that Bayer paid drug companies nearly $400 million to drop challenges to Bayer's Cipro patent and to refrain from selling generic versions of the drug (Cipro Cases I and II $(All Actions$), Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding Nos. 4154 and 4220, Calif. Super., San Diego Co.).

    Nexium End-Payers Granted Certification Of Damages Class, Not Injunctive Class

    BOSTON - A federal judge in Massachusetts on Nov. 14 certified a damages class of end-payers that purchased or provided reimbursements for Nexium on the end-payers' antitrust and consumer protection claims contending that the manufacturer of the heartburn medication and generic drug manufacturers entered into reverse-payment agreements to keep generic versions of the medication out of the market, but the judge denied the end-payers' motion for certification of an injunctive class (In re Nexium $(Esomeprazole$) Antitrust Litigation, No. 12-md-02409, D. Mass.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162276, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162496).

    Kellogg's $4 Million Frosted Mini-Wheats Settlement Approved

    SAN DIEGO - A California federal judge on Nov. 14 granted final approval of a revised $4 million settlement in a class lawsuit accusing Kellogg Co. of making false advertising claims about its Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal despite earlier concerns that the amount for class members had been reduced while attorney fees and expenses remained unchanged (Harry Dennis, et al. v. Kellogg Co., No. 09-1786, S.D. Calif.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163118).

    High Court Denies Challenge To Judge's Practice In Appointing Class Counsel

    WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on Nov.18 denied a petition for review filed by a class member who objected to the settlement of a class suit accusing Sirius XM Radio Inc. of antitrust violations in connection with the 2008 merger of the only two providers of satellite radio, and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. commented that a judge's requirement that class counsel reflect the class as to race and gender may warrant "future review" (Nicholas Martin v. Carl Blessing, et al., No. 13-169, U.S. Sup.).