Merced Irrigation District v. Super. Ct.
(California Court of Appeal) - In a writ proceeding to challenge the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff was not a 'municipal corporation' for purpose of Public Utilities Code section 10251, which authorizes municipal corporations to recover all damages from any person who injures any facility or equipment of the municipal corporation through want of care, the petition is denied where the term 'municipal corporation' used in section 10251 does not include irrigation districts.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - In a brought suit against the U.S. claiming that two federal government agencies selling electricity over-charged appellants for electricity, the Federal Claims Court dismissal for lack of standing is affirmed where plaintiffs lack privity of contract or any other relationship with the government that would confer standing.
MPS Merchant Services, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In consolidated petitions for review brought by various power companies of FERC determinations that various energy companies committed tariff violations in California during the summer of 2000, the FERC determinations are affirmed where: 1) it did not arbitrarily and capriciously, or abuse its discretion in finding that electric sellers Shell Energy North America, LP, MPS Merchant Services, Inc., and Illinova Corporation violated the Cal-ISO tariff and Market Monitoring and Information Protocol; 2) FERC's Summer Period determinations regarding APX, Inc., and BP EnergyCo. were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion; and 3) because FERC's remedial order is not final, the panel lacked appellate jurisdiction over it.
California Public Utilities Comm. v. Superior Court
(California Court of Appeal) - In a petition for writ of mandamus and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief against the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for failing to comply with the the Public Records Act (PRA), Government Code sections 6250-6276.48, the petition is granted where Public Utilities Code section 1759 bars the superior court from exercising jurisdiction over such a lawsuit.
Dept. of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates
(Supreme Court of California) - In an action concerning who pays for storm drains, the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the Regional Water Quality Control Board for Los Angeles's permit conditions are mandated by federal law and that storm drain systems operators are not entitled to state reimbursement under Article XIII B, section 6, subd. (a) of the California Constitution is reversed where the permit conditions are not imposed by any federal law or regulatory system.
Santiago-Ramos v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica de Puerto Rico
(United States First Circuit) - In a public utilities class action, contending that defendant power company (PREPA)'s subsidized municipalities' private use of power in violation of Puerto Rico law, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where plaintiffs' lack of a valid protected interest in the electricity consumed by the municipalities or the funds paid to PREPA deprive them of standing to bring takings or due process claims.
Santa Clarita Org. etc. v. Castaic Lake Water Agency
(California Court of Appeal) - In a lawsuit to unwind a public water agency's acquisition of all of the stock of a retail water purveyor within its territory, the trial court's order refusing to unwind the transaction is affirmed where: 1) the streamlined procedures available for validating certain acts of public agencies, Code Civ. Proc.section 860 et seq., are inapplicable; 2) substantial evidence supports the trial court's factual finding that the purveyor did not become the agency's alter ego in this case; and 3) the agency did not violate article XVI, section 17.
Panoche Energy Center, LLC v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
(California Court of Appeal) - In an arbitration action, arising from a dispute between plaintiff electricity producer and defendant utility over which party bears the cost of complying with laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the trial court's vacating of the arbitration award to PG&E is reversed where the question of contact interpretation was ripe for arbitration and plaintiff failed to show sufficient cause for postponing the arbitration process.
City of Santa Maria v. Adam
(California Court of Appeal) - In a water law action, arising from a dispute between landowners and public water producers over rights to groundwater contained in the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin, the trial court's amended judgment is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly quieted title even though it did not quantify the proportionate prescriptive loss attributed to specified parcels; 2) the trial court did not err in its prevailing party determination for the purposes of determining costs.
ValueRock TN Prop. v. PK II Larwin Square
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order denying anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiffs sought to assign leasehold interest in shopping center. Defendant refused to consent to assignment. Plaintiff brought suit alleging Defendant improperly withheld assignment. Defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion which the trial court denied because the assignment request was not a settlement communication or litigation-related conduct.
Pneuma International Inc v. Cho
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued former employee alleging several business torts including unfair competition and trespass to chattel. Appeals court held that trespass to chattel in business does not establish that the party engaged in an unlawful business practice under California’s Unfair Competition Law. Affirmed in favor of Defendant.
Han v. Hallberg
(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute involving a dental practice, addressed the effect of a now-deceased partner's decision to assign his partnership interest to a trust. Reversed the decision below.
In re Latitude Solutions, Inc.
(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a lawsuit that a bankruptcy trustee brought against officers and directors of the debtor company and others who allegedly participated in a securities fraud scheme, affirmed a jury verdict in part and reversed it in part.
Jarvis v. Jarvis
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order disqualifying an attorney from representing a partnership. The attorney had been hired for this purpose by one of two partners who were embroiled in litigation with each other.
Boschetti v. Pacific Bay Investments Inc.
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the trial court lacked authority to order dissolution of certain out-of-state business entities, in a dispute between partners in a general partnership that owned those entities. Affirmed the trial court's orders.
Ontiveros v. Constable
(California Court of Appeal) - In a case in which a minority shareholder sued a majority shareholder, reversed and remanded with directions to reinstitute a special proceeding under Corporations Code section 2000.
In re Sino Clean Energy, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that former board members of a corporation lacked corporate authority when they filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The board members argued that they had the proper authority to file the bankruptcy petition even though a receiver appointed by a state court already had removed them from the board of directors. Rejecting their argument, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the bankruptcy petition.
GameStop, Inc. v. Superior Court
(California Court of Appeal) - Petition for writ of mandate denied in a case where The People of California filed suit to enjoin the plaintiff from noncompliance with the Unfair Competition law. Plaintiff sought the writ of mandate after its motion to remove the action from Riverside County was denied by the trial court.
Slone v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that shareholders were liable for taxes on proceeds from the sale of a close corporation. The Internal Revenue Service sued the shareholders, claiming they violated Arizona's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act by engaging in a complex series of stock and asset transactions that resulted in creating a debtor company unable to pay the tax bill. Agreeing with the IRS's position, the Ninth Circuit reversed a decision of the Tax Court and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the IRS.
Altera Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld an Internal Revenue Service regulation addressing the tax treatment of employee stock options. In a ruling that has tax implications for multinational companies especially, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Tax Court erred in striking down a regulation, 26 C.F.R. section 1.482-7A(d)(2), which says that related entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as qualified cost-sharing arrangements and thus avoid an IRS adjustment. The panel held that the regulation was entitled to Chevron deference.
Petersen Energía Inversora, S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic
(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss based on foreign sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereignty Immunity Act in a securities lawsuit filed by the shareholder of an Argentine petroleum company against the Argentine Republic which held a majority of shares in the company. In affirming the denial and rejecting the claim of sovereign immunity, the appeals court noted that the plaintiff was seeking relief for injuries caused by commercial, rather than sovereign, activity.
Ohio v American Express Co.
(United States Supreme Court) - The US Supreme Court held that American Express (Amex) anti-steering provisions, in its agreement with merchants to prohibit merchants who take Amex cards from discouraging customers from using their cards in order for the merchant to avoid paying Amex a fee, do not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.
WMI Holdings Corp. v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the US Court of Federal Claims dismissal of a company's action seeking refunds for losses and deductions its predecessor company allegedly should have received for certain intangible assets acquired from the federal government in the 1980s because the court's findings that the company failed to establish with a reasonable degree of certainty the cost basis in each of the assets at issue was not clearly erroneous.
Summers v. The Superior Court of San Francisco County
(California Court of Appeal) - Construing the appeal of a trial court order requiring a party whose ownership interests were contested to be a petition for writ of mandate and holding that partition statutes don't allow a court to order the manner of a property's partition before determining the ownership interests of the property at stake, reversing the court's order.
Heavenly Hana LLC v. Hotel Union & Hotel Industry of Hawaii Pension Plan
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing a district court judgment to the plaintiffs following a bench trail in an action under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendment Act because the plaintiffs were required to assume the unpaid withdrawal liability of their predecessor to a multiemployer pension plan, a constructive notice standard applied and a reasonable purchaser would have been aware of the liability.
M-1 Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Ltda.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversing and remanding the suit alleging infringement of five US patents for lack of personal jurisdiction by a UK company with a Texas subsidiary suing a Brazilian company with a Minnesota subsidiary because Federal Rules of Civil Procedure supported the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction.
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC
(United States Supreme Court) - Affirming the dismissal of Alien Tort Statute complaints filed by the victims of terrorist attacks against a Jordanian bank with a New York branch they said was used to process transactions by a Texas-based charity allegedly affiliated with Hamas because under Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petrolium Co. the ATS does not extend to suits against foreign corporations when all relevant conduct took place out of the United States, extending this holding to deem that foreign corporations may not be sued under the ATS generally.
IIG Wireless, Inc. v. Yi
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming a judgment after jury trial and the denial of the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in the cases of a business dispute, but also affirming the grant of nonsuit to the defendant's fiance and the denial of a motion to amend the complaint and the refusal to admit the plaintiff's expert testimony in a suit relating to the breakdown in the business relationship of the dealers for MetroPCS stores in California.
The Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Page
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the grant of summary judgment to Google executives in a suit brought by three shareholders bringing derivative suits alleging the corporation was harmed by executives who agreed to refrain from actively recruiting employees working for competitors, an arrangement that had been previously abandoned when it gave rise to antitrust issues with the Department of Justice, because the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
Coley v. DirectTV, Inc.
(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's ruling holding a man liable for a fraudulent scheme involving the unauthorized transmission of DIRECTV's television programming and the entry of a judgment for over two million dollars and permitting the reverse veil piercing of three limited liability companies in order to satisfy the judgment.
Eng v. Brown
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the entry of judgment in favor of the defense following a jury trial alleging the breach of fiduciary duty in the operation of a seafood restaurant in San Diego because the partnership or joint venture was terminated when they incorporated the business and yet the claims were based on partnership or joint venture.
Heller Ehrman LLP v. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
(Supreme Court of California) - Holding that under California law, a dissolved law firm has no property interest in legal matters handled on an hourly basis and therefore no interest in profits generated by a former partners' work on hourly fee matters pending at the time of dissolution.
DD Hair Lounge, LLC v. State Farm General Insurance Company
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the dismissal of a complaint brought by a company formed by a hairdresser who attempted to take advantage of changes in the law relating to whether cancelled companies can pursue litigation rather than litigate in a forthcoming manner, creating a situation where they were technically entitled to proceed but allowing them to do so would be unfair.
3123 SMB LLC v. Horn
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing a district court dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a case involving potential jurisdictional manipulation and alter ego relationships between companies in a case where a new company's state of residence was unclear because it hadn't conducted any activity apart from incorporation.
Duke v. The Superior Court of Kern County
(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a petition for writ of mandate and directing the superior court to modify an order sustaining real parties' demurrer to a plaintiff's cause of action and entering a new order overruling a portion of the demurrer because the lower court improperly analyzed the claim of conversion.
Apple Inc. v. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County
(California Court of Appeal) - Issuing a peremptory writ of mandate and vacating the superior court's refusal to apply the Braddock rule, requiring that the court assess demand futility as to the board in place when an amended complaint is filed in a corporate action, because the rule is consistent with relevant aspects of California law.
ITV Gurney Holding, Inc. v. Gurney
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's order reinstating the Gurneys, the producers of Duck Dynasty, to positions managing the day-to-day operations of the plaintiff company that they once owned and are the minority owners of, who had been fired from their roles as CEOs and removed from management, because the very operating agreement the Gurneys said gave them authority to manage actually gave the company, through its board, the ultimate authority and allowed them to remove the Gurneys from management, but affirming the preliminary injunction allowing them to continue as board members and barring the company from infringing their rights in that position.
In Re Irving Tanning Company
(United States First Circuit) - Affirming bankruptcy court and district court rulings that a transaction involving the debt-financed purchase of a family owned leather manufacturer was not a fraudulent conveyance and did not amount to a violation of the fiduciary duties of the company's directors because the factual determinations were not clearly erroneous and supported the court's conclusions.
Central Laborers Pension Fund v. McAfee, Inc.
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's summary judgment as to nine outside directors of McAfee in a class action corporate malfeasance case relating to the company's merger with Intel in which former public shareholders alleged an unfair process contaminated by conflicts that resulted in an undervalued price at sale, but reversing the judgment as to the former CEO and the corporate defendants
Kass v. City of New York
(United States Second Circuit) - Reversing the district court's denial of the defendant police officer's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the remainder of the appeal in a case alleging false arrest and imprisonment because there was evidence the officers had probable cause for the arrest and they are entitled to qualified immunity under New York law.
DuQuesne Light Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming the Tax Court's application of the Ilfield doctrine in holding that the double deduction for losses incurred by the subsidiary of a company was improper and disallowing $199 million of those losses.
Norman v. Elkin
(United States Third Circuit) - In a communications company's partnership dispute, arising out of the transfer of partnership assets without compensation, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed on alternative grounds the decision to enter summary judgment in defendant's favor on the claim of fraud; and 2) vacated as to judgment in defendant's favor on plaintiff's remaining claims where the District Court erred in concluding that tolling of the statute of limitations is categorically inappropriate when a plaintiff has inquiry notice before initiating a books and records action in the Delaware courts.
Seaview Trading, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition challenging a notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment, the Tax Court’s dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, is affirmed where: 1) because plaintiff contended that his business entity was a small partnership not subject to the audit procedures under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), entities that are disregarded for federal tax purposes may nevertheless constitute pass-thru partners under 26 U.S.C. section 6231(a)(9), such that the small-partnership exception under section 6231 does not apply and the partnership is therefore subject to the TEFRA audit procedures; 2) resolution of this question iss inextricably intertwined with the contention that plaintiff had standing to file a petition for readjustment of partnership items on behalf of his purported small partnership; and 3) as to standing, because a party other than plaintiff's entity's tax matters partner filed a petition for readjustment of partnership items after the partnership had timely done the same, the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. section 6226.
F5 Capital v. Pappas
(California Court of Appeal) - In a a shareholder derivative action on behalf of a company, alleging that individual members of the company's board and affiliated entities improperly exploited their control of the corporation in entering into three separate self-dealing transactions, the district court's dismissal of the complaint, concluding that the dilution claim was properly derivative under Delaware law and that plaintiff failed to plead demand futility under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23.1(b)(3)(B), as to any of the claims, is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's dilution claim was properly derivative, not direct; 2) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the non-class, derivative claims; and 3) plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to excuse it from making a pre-suit demand.
Applied Medical Corporation v. Thomas
(California Court of Appeal) - In a corporate governance action, arising from plaintiff corporation's suit over the exercise of its right to repurchase shares of its stock, given to defendant under a stock incentive plan for outside directors on its board, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is: 1) reversed because plaintiff's conversion claim could be based on either ownership or the right to possession at the time of conversion; and 2) affirmed because plaintiff's fraud claims were not timely under either the discovery rule or relation back doctrine, and thus barred by the statute of limitations.
Stein v. AXIS Ins. Co.
(California Court of Appeal) - In an action against two insurance companies, brought by a plaintiff-insured who was denied coverage under a D&O policy because he was convicted of securities fraud, the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants' demurrer and dismissing the complaint is: 1) affirmed in part where the AXIS demurrer was properly sustained because AXIS was a stranger to the HCC policy and owed no duties connected with it; but 2) reversed in part where the HCC demurrer was improperly sustained because when a policy expressly provides coverage for litigation expenses on appeal, an exclusion requiring repayment to the insurer upon a 'final determination' of the insured's culpability applies only after the insured's direct appeals have been exhausted.
Charney v. Standard General
(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit brought by the former CEO of American Apparel whose employment was terminated following an investigation into allegations that he engaged in various types of misconduct, alleging several causes of action rooted in plaintiff's claim that the press release announcing his termination contained false and defamatory information about him, the trial court's grant of defendant's order granting an anti-SLAPP motion, Code Civ. Proc. section 425.16, is affirmed where plainitiff did not satisfy his burden of showing there was a minimal chance his claims would succeed at trial.
Tract No. 7260 Assn. v. Parker
(California Court of Appeal) - In an action brought by a member of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation to inspect the corporation's membership list, and other books and records, the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate to compel inspection, on grounds that the member sought the inspection for an improper purpose, unrelated to his interest as a member of the corporation, and findings that the corporation did not timely challenge the request for the membership list as required by statute, and therefore ordered the list disclosed, is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the member sought the information for an improper purpose; and 2) the corporation's challenge to disclosing the membership list was not barred by statute.
Sheley v. Harrop
(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute involving the control of a pest control company started by decedent, asserting causes of action to recover damages for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty based on actions taken by defendant (decedent's wife) in cooperation with the decedent, the trial court granted of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion as to plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is: 1) modified by granting defendants' motion to strike the specific claims founded on allegations of protected activity in each remaining cause of action in the cross-complaint; and 2) otherwise affirmed as modified.
People v. Black
(California Court of Appeal) - In the People's appeal pursuant to Penal Code section 1238(a)(1), challenging the trial court's order to set aside certain counts of charges against defendant for using false statements in the offer or sale of a security, Corp. Code sections 25401, 25540(b), after defendant persuaded an acquaintance to invest in a real estate development opportunity in Idaho in return for a promissory note, the terms of which were amended and extended several times but never realized, the trial court's order is affirmed where the promissory notes offered for the investment in the real estate development scheme were not securities within the meaning of the Corporate Securities Law.