Western Surety Co. v. La Cumbre Office
(California Court of Appeal) - In an action for breach of an indemnity agreement, the trial court's grant of summary judgment requiring defendant to pay plaintiff approximately $6.07 million pursuant to the indemnity agreement is affirmed where although the signatory did not have actual authority to execute the indemnity agreement on defendant's behalf, in these circumstances, the person's signature binds defendant pursuant to former Corporations Code section 17157(d) (now section 17703.01(d)), provided that the other party to the agreement does not have actual knowledge of the person's lack of authority to execute the agreement on behalf of defendant.
Trikona Advisers Limited v. Chugh
(California Court of Appeal) - In a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty by defendant, a former partner and fifty percent owner of plaintiff corporation, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed over plaintiff's meritless arguments that: 1) the district court incorrectly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel; and 2) Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code prevents the district court from giving preclusive effect to the Cayman court's factual findings.
Trikona Advisers Limited v. Chugh
(United States Second Circuit) - In a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty by defendant, a former partner and fifty percent owner of plaintiff corporation, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed over plaintiff's meritless arguments that: 1) the district court incorrectly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel; and 2) Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code prevents the district court from giving preclusive effect to the Cayman court's factual findings.
Swart Enterprises v. Franchise Tax Bd.
(California Court of Appeal) - In a case dealing with the issue of whether California's franchise tax applies to an out-of-state corporation whose sole connection with California is a 0.2 percent ownership interest in a manager-managed California limited liability company (LLC) investment fund, the trial court's judgment is affirmed where passively holding a 0.2 percent ownership interest, with no right of control over the business affairs of the LLC, does not constitute 'doing business' in California within the meaning of Rev. & Tax. Code section 23101.
Bradley v. ARIAD Pharms., Inc.
(United States First Circuit) - In an investor suit against the company and four corporate officers, following a drop in the share price of the company, alleging securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed as to the dismissal of the securities fraud counts, except with respect to one particular alleged misstatement for which we find the allegations set forth in the complaint sufficient to state a claim; and 2) affirmed as to the disposition of the plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11 and 15, albeit on different grounds than those articulated by the district court.
Goles v. Sawhney
(California Court of Appeal) - In an appeal from an order specifying the buyout value of plaintiffs' 36.7% minority shareholder interest in Katana Software, Inc. pursuant to Corporations Code section 2000(c), is reversed where: 1) the order is an alternative decree which is appealable pursuant to section 2000(c), under Cotton v. Expo Power Systems, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1380; and 2) the trial court undervalued their shares when it 'confirmed' three disparate court-ordered appraisals and averaged the appraisals to determine the fair value of the company.
US ex rel. Bunk v. Government Logistics N.V.
(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a complex matter which began more than fifteen years ago as a bid-rigging scheme conjured up by shipping businesses to defraud the United States, the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is vacated where the court erred by: 1) deciding that the successor corporation liability claims against defendant should be dismissed because they had been inadequately pleaded; and 2) ruling that there was insufficient evidence to justify a trial.
ZF Micro Devices v. TAT Capital Partners
(California Court of Appeal) - In the third chapter of Silicon Valley litigation spanning more than 14 years involving a microchip company and its successor, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, the judgment entered on plaintiff's cross-complaint against defendant is reversed where the court erred in submitting defendant's statute of limitations defense to the jury, as the cross-complaint was timely filed.
Wolf Metals Inc. v. Rand Pacific Sales Inc.
(California Court of Appeal) - In a judgment enforcement action, arising out of a default judgment for plaintiff in a contracts dispute over defendant's failure to pay for sheet metal, the trial court's entry of amended default judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) Donald Koh was improperly added as a judgment debtor on an alter ego theory under Motores de Mexicali v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 172 (1958); but 2) South Gate Steel was properly added as a judgment debtor on a corporate successor theory.
ALDF v. USDA
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed in part, affirmed in part. Plaintiffs have standing for a Freedom of Information Act claim because the removal of compliance and enforcement records from the USDA website harmed them in real-world ways, differently from the injuries sustained by other Americans.
Palin v. The New York Times Company
(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Palin appeals the dismissal of her defamation complaint against The New York Times for failure to state a claim. Finding the district court erred in relying on facts outside the proceedings, the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Brown v. Maxwell; Dershowitz v. Giuffre
(United States Second Circuit) - Vacate and order the unsealing of summary judgment record and remand. Intervenors, Dershowitz and the Miami Herald, appeal from an order denying motion to unseal filings in a defamation suit stemming from a suit brought as a result of the conviction of Jeffrey Epstein. Appeals court held the district court failed to conduct appropriate review when it ordered records sealed. Appeals court ordered the unsealing of summary judgment materials as there was no privacy interest sufficient to justify continued sealing. The remaining documents require additional review by the district court applying appropriate standards.
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a private entity operating public access cable TV channels was not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. The producers of a controversial documentary film contended that the nonprofit corporation running the public access channels was a state actor because it was exercising a function traditionally exclusively reserved to the State, and therefore was subject to suit for violating their free speech rights. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.
Marshall's Locksmith Service v. Google, LLC
(United States DC Circuit) - Held that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo were not liable for allegedly conspiring to flood the market of online search results with information about so-called scam locksmiths, in order to extract additional advertising revenue. The Communications Decency Act barred this lawsuit brought by more than a dozen locksmith companies. Affirmed a dismissal.
Kidd v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a media company was not a "consumer reporting agency" subject to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. A job applicant alleged that the company's subscription‐based online research platform erroneously showed that he had been previously convicted of theft. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the media company.
Board of Forensic Document Examiners, Inc. v. American Bar Association
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an organization may not proceed with its defamation action alleging reputational harm from an article published in an American Bar Association law journal. The author's statements were non-actionable expressions of opinion. Affirmed a dismissal.
Brown v. Pacifica Foundation, Inc.
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a board member of a nonprofit corporation was not entitled to a preliminary injunction barring her from being removed from the board. Reversed a preliminary injunction, in this case involving a nonprofit that operates public radio stations.
BWP Media USA Inc. v. Polyvore, Inc.
(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a media company's claim that a popular website infringed its copyright in certain photographs of famous celebrities. The website, which enables users to create and share digital photo collages, has a clipper tool that lets users clip images from other websites. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part, in this case involving the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Sonoma Media Investments, LLC v. Superior Court (Flater)
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a newspaper's anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted to block a libel suit. The plaintiffs failed to make a prima-facie showing that statements regarding them in a series of articles about campaign contributions were false. Reversed in relevant part.
Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com
(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a copyright claimant may not commence an infringement suit until the Copyright Office registers the copyright. The plaintiff, a news organization that sued a news website for infringement, argued that the relevant date should be when the Copyright Office receives a completed application for registration, even if the Register of Copyrights has not yet acted on that application. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg.
US v. AT&T, Inc.
(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the federal government could not block a proposed merger between AT&T and Time Warner. The government had sued to enjoin the vertical merger on the basis that it would have anticompetitive effects. However, the D.C. Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that the government's evidence was insufficient, and affirmed the denial of a permanent injunction.
National Association of African American-Owned Media v. Charter Communications, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that an African American-owned operator of television networks sufficiently pleaded that a cable television operator unlawfully refused to enter into a carriage contract based on racial bias, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss, on interlocutory appeal.
American Beverage Association v. City and County of San Francisco
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an en banc opinion, addressed the constitutionality of a San Francisco ordinance that requires health warnings to be included in advertisements for certain sugar-sweetened beverages. Industry groups challenged the ordinance, contending that it violates freedom of commercial speech. Finding this argument persuasive, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court should have granted a preliminary injunction against the ordinance.
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. US Department of Defense
(United States DC Circuit) - In a Freedom of Information Act case, held that the presidential communications privilege barred disclosure of five memoranda memorializing advice to President Obama about a military strike on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.
Rall v. Tribune 365 LLC
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a political cartoonist and blogger could not proceed with his lawsuit alleging that a newspaper wrongfully terminated his employment and also defamed him by telling its readers that it had serious questions about the accuracy of one of his blog posts. Affirmed the granting of the newspaper's anti-SLAPP motion.
Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by a financial services company, holding that the use of its trademarks by a publishing company constituted nominative fair use.
Olive v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc.
(California Court of Appeal) - On rehearing, held that a professional model and actor was not entitled to recover his attorney fees after being awarded damages against an advertiser that used his likeness in an advertising campaign after its right to do so expired. Affirmed the trial court.
National Association of African American-Owned Media v. Charter Communications, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an African American-owned operator of television networks sufficiently pleaded a claim that a cable television operator refused to enter into a carriage contract based on racial bias, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Also, the section 1981 claim was not barred by the First Amendment. On interlocutory appeal, affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss.
Courthouse News Service v. Brown
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the district court should have abstained from exercising jurisdiction over a lawsuit contending that the First Amendment required the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to release newly filed complaints to the press at the moment of receipt by her office -- not after processing. Ordered the case dismissed without prejudice.
National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a city was entitled to invoice the National Lawyers Guild for certain costs incurred in complying with the Guild’s requests for production of documents under the California Public Records Act, including billing for the time that city employees spent redacting police body camera videos.
Spinelli v. National Football League
(United States Second Circuit) - Reinstated sports photographers' copyright infringement claims against the National Football League and the Associated Press. Seven photographers who make a living taking photos of NFL events alleged that thousands of their photos were exploited without a license and without compensating them in any way. Vacating in part and remanding, the Second Circuit held that some of the photographers' claims were plausibly pleaded.
Lemelson v. Bloomberg L.P.
(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a defamation suit brought by a hedge fund manager who claimed Bloomberg News falsely reported that he was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The plaintiff brought suit against Bloomberg, as well as the reporter and editor of the story, alleging that they had defamed him and committed other common-law torts. Agreeing with the district court, the First Circuit held that the plaintiff was required to plausibly allege actual malice because he was at least a limited-purpose public figure and that he had failed to allege such facts.
Sander v. State Bar of California
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the State Bar of California did not have to disclose information from its database. For social science research purposes, the petitioners sought anonymized data about all individuals who took the California bar examination from 1972 to 2008, including their race or ethnicity, law school and undergraduate grade point averages, LSAT scores, and performance on the bar examination. Affirming the denial of a writ of mandate, the California First Appellate District held that such a request was beyond the purview of the California Public Records Act because it would compel the State Bar to create new records.
American Civil Liberties Union v. US Department of Defense
(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the U.S. government was justified in refusing to release certain photographs of detainees taken by U.S. Army personnel at military detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations demanded that the photographs be released under the Freedom of Information Act. The government countered that the photographs were shielded from disclosure by a 2009 law, the Protected National Security Documents Act. Agreeing with the government, the Second Circuit reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the government.
Gold Medal LLC v. USA Track and Field
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that the U.S. Olympic Committee and USA Track and Field did not violate antitrust law by imposing advertising restrictions during the Olympic Trials. A chewing gum company that wished to pay to display its logo on athletes' apparel brought this suit to challenge the advertising restrictions. Rejecting the company's arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant organizations were entitled to implied antitrust immunity on the basis that their advertising restrictions were integral to performance of their duties under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.
Anderson News, L.L.C. v. American Media, Inc.
(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed that magazine publishers did not violate antitrust laws by trying to drive a wholesaler out of business. The wholesaler delivered magazines to retail stores and it alleged that when it tried to impose a surcharge on the publishers in 2009, they conspired to boycott and drive the wholesaler out of business. On appeal, the Second Circuit found that the wholesaler had presented insufficient evidence of a boycott scheme to survive summary judgment. The panel also affirmed summary judgment against the publishers' counterclaims.
National Conference of Black Mayors v. Chico Community Publishing, Inc.
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order denying attorney's fees to a newspaper that had been forced to litigate over its request for public records. The newspaper argued that it was entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under the California Public Records Act. However, the Third Appellate District disagreed, holding that the Act does not allow for an award of attorney fees when the requester litigates against an officer of a public agency in a mandamus action that the officer initiated to keep the public agency from disclosing records it agreed to disclose.
Lee v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of class action employment law claims brought by independent contractors working for the government-funded broadcast service Voice of America. The contractors alleged that they should have been appointed to positions in the civil service or retained through personal-services contracts instead of working under purchase order vendor contracts that provided less in the way of compensation and benefits. In affirming the dismissal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the trial court's finding that plaintiffs had set forth no viable theory of recovery.
Verisign, Inc. v. XYZ.com LLC
(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacating a district court's denial of a motion for attorney fees and remanding for consideration under the appropriate legal and evidentiary standards in a Lanham Act case in a suit relating to internet domain registry services because the district court required clear and convincing evidence of an exceptional case, rather than the Act's preponderance of the evidence standard.
Verisign, Inc. v. XYZ.com LLC
(California Court of Appeal) - Vacating a district court's denial of a motion for attorney fees and remanding for consideration under the appropriate legal and evidentiary standards in a Lanham Act case in a suit relating to internet domain registry services because the district court required clear and convincing evidence of an exceptional case, rather than the Act's preponderance of the evidence standard.
Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc.
(United States Second Circuit) - Reversing a district court order finding fair use in the case of a company that enables clients to view and distribute ten-minute clips of television and radio programs produced by others because whether or not the snippets served a transformational purpose the provision of virtually all of Fox's copyrighted content deprived Fox of copyright revenue and could not be justified as fair use.
Halleck v. Manhattan Community Access Corporation
(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal for failure to state a claim allegations of First Amendment violations by the City of New York, but reversing as to Manhattan Community Access Corporation and its employees because public access TV channels are a public forum and the corporation and its employees were state actors when they fired workers who produced segments critical of the corporation.
BMG Rights Management LLC v. Round Hill Music LP
(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a case alleging copyright infringement seeking to hold a high-speed internet provider contributorily responsible for infringement of a music publisher's copyrights, affirming the trial court's determination that the defense was not entitled to a safe harbor defense, but reversing, vacating, and remanding on account of errors in jury instructions.
Alpine PCS, Inc. v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of a wireless company's complaints for lack of jurisdiction under the Tucker Act in the case of a company whose failure to pay for spectrum licenses resulted in their automatic cancellation by the FCC because the Communications Act provided a comprehensive statutory scheme to raise contract claims, which foreclosed Tucker Act jurisdiction.
Eil v. US Drug Enforcement Administration
(United States First Circuit) - Reversing a district court decision relating to the release of private individuals' medical documents under the Freedom of Information Act in a case brought by a journalist conducting research because the balancing of public interest in disclosure and the relevant privacy interests was flawed due to the court's application of the wrong standard because the release of the documents was unlikely to advance a valid public interest and substantial privacy interests implicated by the records outweighed the interest in disclosure.
Bartholomew v. Youtube, LLC.
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's dismissal for failure to state a claim in the case of a musician whose video was taken down from YouTube, which posted a statement that the video had violated their terms of service, because using violence and profanity as examples of things that could result in the removal of a video did not amount to libel.
Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court dismissal of an action alleging that ESPN gave away personally identifiable information in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act by giving Adobe Analytics the plaintiff's Roku device serial number and identifying videos he watched through an ESPN app, rejecting ESPN's contention that the plaintiff lacked standing because every disclosure of personally identifiable information provides standing, but holding that an ordinary person couldn't use the information to identify an individual.
Crime Justice and America, Inc. v. Honea
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's judgment in favor of the defense and its denial of plaintiff motions to reopen discovery and for relief from judgment in an action challenging a jail's policy prohibiting the delivery of unsolicited commercial mail to inmates because the ban related to legitimate penological objectives and arguments supporting the plaintiff's appeals had been abandoned.
Yelp, Inc. v. Superior Court of Orange County
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's ruling that Yelp lacked standing to assert the First Amendment rights of an anonymous reviewer whose identity was sought in connection with a defamation claim, finding no error in the determination that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the comments made by this person were defamatory, and concluding that this finding was sufficient to support the court order compelling the production of subpeonaed documents, for which reason the petition for writ of mandate was denied, but also finding the opposition to the motion to compel was substantially justified and reversing the order of sanctions against Yelp.
Dan Farr Productions v. San Diego Comic Convention
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Ordering the district court to vacate orders prohibiting the petitioner from expressing their views on litigation or republishing public documents over social media platforms, and requiring them to post a disclaimer prohibiting comment on the litigation because this amounted to prior restraint on their First Amendment rights.