SAN FRANCISCO - The plaintiffs who sued a candy maker for selling oversized opaque candy boxes in an effort to deceive consumers moved May 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking preliminary approval of a $2.5 million settlement that will provide cash refunds of 50 cents per box purchased to the consumer class (Thomas Iglesias, et al. v. Ferrara Candy Co., et al., No. 17-849, N.D. Calif.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A patented tubular seat and tubular actuating system for use in oil and gas fracturing is rendered obvious and anticipated by various prior art, according to a May 10 petition for inter partes review filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Packers Plus Energy Services Inc. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations LLC, No. IPR2018-01030, PTAB).
SAN FRANCISCO - Lyft Inc., an app-based taxi service, has deceived and violated California's unfair competition law (UCL) by misrepresenting and changing fare practices, one driver alleges in his May 10 class complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Fernando Villasenor, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., et al., No. 18-2769, N.D. Calif.).
ASHEVILLE, N.C. - A magistrate judge erred in recommending dismissal of a former casino employee's wage-and-hour class claims based on the employer's connection to an Indian tribe, the ex-worker says in a May 11 objection to the magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation in North Carolina federal court (Joseph Clark v. Harrah's NC Casino Company, LLC, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00240, W.D. N.C.).
DENVER - A group of Colorado residents on May 14 filed a lawsuit in Colorado federal court against the 3M Co. and affiliated companies, alleging that they are liable for personal injury and property damage as a result of contaminating the drinking water in the cities of Security, Widefield and Colorado Springs with aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) (Cody Ingemansen, et al. v. The 3m Company f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., et al., No. 18-1167, D. Colo.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. - A California federal judge on May 11 ordered the city of Laguna Beach and its insurer to show cause why a coverage dispute over a sewer backup should not be stayed in its entirety pending resolution of the underlying lawsuit (Tokio Marine Specialty Insurance Company v. Laguna Beach, No. 17-00277, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80214).
BOSTON - A man's suit against a provider who allegedly misled him regarding potential insurance coverage for his daughter's mental health treatments in an effort to trump up prices does not implicate ERISA at this stage, a federal judge in Massachusetts held May 14 in remanding the case (Samuel S. Halberg, et al. v. McLean Hospital, No. 17-11341, D. Mass., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80469).
MOBILE, Ala. - An Alabama federal judge on May 14 dismissed without prejudice a commercial general liability insurer's declaratory judgment lawsuit after the parties announced that they reached an amicable settlement (Acadia Insurance Co. v. SouthernPointe Group, Inc., et al., No. 17-01368, N.D. Ala.).
CHICAGO - The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 10 rejected a petition to reconsider its finding that an amendment to a pension plan's calculation of retirement income credits does not violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's anti-cutback rule (James P. Teufel v. The Northern Trust Co., et al., Nos. 17-1676, 17-1677, 7th Cir.).
CHICAGO - A panel's decision that reversed a trial court's dismissal of a putative class action over a 2012 Barnes & Noble Inc. (B&N) data breach will stand, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 10, denying the retailer's petition for rehearing (Heather Dieffenbach, et al. v. Barnes & Noble Inc., No. 17-2408, 7th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12331).
ATLANTA - An 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 10 reaffirmed the precedent established in Evans v. Ga. Regional Hospital, 850 F.3d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir. 2017), and ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., does not cover bias based on sexual orientation (Gerald Lynn Bostock v. Clayton County Board of Commissioners, et al., No. 17-13801, 11th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12405).
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - A release agreement between a general contractor and Lumber Liquidators Inc. resolving warranty claims stemming from bamboo flooring that buckled due to the lack of expansion spaces requires the contractor to indemnify the company for allegations brought by the developer of a condominium complex, a Rhode Island trial court judge ruled May 10, finding that terms of the release are unambiguous and enforceable (Providence Capital LLC v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., et al., No. PC-2015-0995, R.I. Super., Providence Co., 2018 R.I. Super. LEXIS 48).
ALLENTOWN, Pa. - After excluding expert testimony for lack of reliability and helpfulness, a Pennsylvania federal judge on May 10 awarded summary judgment to a ladder company and a big box retail chain in a personal injury action filed by a man who fell from a ladder (Benjamin White, et al. v. The Home Depot, Inc., et al., No. 5:17-cv-4174, E.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79694).
SCRANTON, Pa. - A Pennsylvania federal judge on May 11 granted an insurer's motion for summary judgment on a bad faith claim after determining that the insured failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the insurer acted in bad faith in its handling of the insured's claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits (Brittany Shaw v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., No. 17-947, M.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80101).
BATON ROUGE, La. - A couple's redhibition claim stating that windows manufactured by Jeld-Wen Inc. that were installed in their home are defective is not prescribed by the statute of limitations, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled May 11, because they did not learn about the alleged defect until 2015 (Ronald Leo, et al. v. Jeld-Wen Inc., No. 16-00605-BAJ-EWD, M.D. La., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80179).
FLINT, Mich. - State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.'s lawsuit accusing defendants of engaging in a scheme to submit fraudulent bills under its insureds' no-fault insurance benefits coverage is not subject to abstention or preemption, a federal judge in Michigan ruled May 14 in denying the defendants' motion to dismiss (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Vital Community Care PC, et al., No. 17-11721, E.D. Mich., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80361).
SAN FRANCISCO - Citing a "multitude of fact disputes," a California federal judge on May 14 denied summary judgment motions by Facebook Inc. and a group of Facebook users in a class action alleging that the social network operator violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by collecting users' facial scans in connection with a photo-tagging feature (In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation, No. 3:15-cv-03747, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81044).
DENVER - A 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed dismissal of a securities class action May 11, ruling that the lead plaintiff failed to show that the defendants had a duty to disclose to investors that the defendants were in discussions with a second company when they announced a proposed merger deal with another company, that the discussions with the second company were material or that the defendants acted with the requisite scienter in failing to disclose the discussions (Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island, et al. v. The Williams Companies Inc., et al., No. 17-5034, 10th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12322).
SEATTLE - The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 11 affirmed a district court's ruling that statutory and common-law third-party bad faith claims alleged against an auto insurer are barred by the statute of limitations because the claimant did not file suit against the insurer until more than three years after judgment had been issued in the underlying tort suit (Rocky Dietz v. GEICO General Insurance Co., No. 17-35011, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12351).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on May 14 denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by an out-of-network health care provider denied coverage by an Employee Retirement Income Security Act administrator for more than $11 million in claims that was seeking a ruling on two ERISA-related issues (Humble Surgical Hospital, LLC v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al., No. 17-1325, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 3013).
CARSON CITY, Nev. - The Nevada Supreme Court on May 10 reversed two rulings denying U.S. Home Corp.'s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration provisions in sales agreements and covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) between the builder and buyer are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (U.S. Home Corp. v. Miguel Medina, et al., No. 64604, Nev. Sup., 2018 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 400).
SANTA ANA, Calif. - A California federal judge on May 10 remanded the cases of 4,321 Lipitor diabetes plaintiffs to state court, finding that nothing that was said or done by either the plaintiffs or California state judges in connection with a state coordinated Lipitor litigation meant that the plaintiffs intend to have a joint trial (In Re: Lipitor, No. 18-1725, C.D. California, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80284).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on May 11 unsealed five whistle-blower lawsuits alleging that Insys Therapeutics paid kickbacks for doctors to prescribe its opioid drug Subsys (United States of America, et al., ex rel. Maria Guzman v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 13-5861, United States of America, et al., ex rel. John Doe, et al., No. 14-34888, United States of America, ex rel. Allison Erickson, et al. v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., No. 16-2956, United States of America, ex rel. Jane Doe, et al. v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., No. 16-7937, C.D. Calif., Western Div.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 14 clarified two "basic" and "undecided" issues relating to "proper judicial administration in the wake of" TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017); according to the panel, Federal Circuit law governs the burden of proof for determining the propriety of venue under the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), and the burden rests with a patent infringement plaintiff (In re: ZTE USA Inc., No. 18-113, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12498).