Legal News

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[10/01] In re Heritage Bond Litig.
In a challenge to the scope of bar orders issued in securities class action settlements, bar orders forbidding all suits by non-settling defendant against settling defendants relating to or arising out of the class action are vacated as overly broad and remanded for modification because bar orders issued pursuant to Private Securities Litigation Reform Act section 4(f)(7)(A) or California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 can only bar claims for contribution, indemnity, and claims where the injury is the non-settling defendant's liability to the class action plaintiffs.

[09/30] Golden Gate Rest. Ass'n v. City and County of San Francisco
In a challenge to municipally mandated employer health care spending requirements, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed and the case remanded with instruction to enter summary judgment for defendant where the spending requirements are not preempted by ERISA because: 1) the spending requirements do not create an ERISA "plan" as defined by 29 U.S.C. section 1002(1); and 2) the spending requirements do not have an impermissible connection with employers' ERISA plans, or make impermissible reference to such plans.

[09/25] US v. Able Time, Inc.
In an suit involving allegedly counterfeit watches seized by Customs and the resulting civil penalties imposed, grant of summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) the Tariff Act does not contain an identity of goods or services requirement; and 2) as a matter of law, goods imported by defendant could not be "merchandise bearing a counterfeit mark" under 19 U.S.C. section 1526(e) because the owner of the trademark in question did not at the time make the type of goods imported by defendant.

More...

Contracts

[10/06] Crawford Group, Inc. v. Holekamp
In a dispute over the value of former executive vice president's stock in Enterprise Rent-A-Car, an order confirming an arbitration award of about $20.7 million against its parent company is affirmed where: 1) the AAA's resolution of the company's challenge to an arbitrator's appointment did not present a basis for vacatur of the arbitration award; 2) a particular paragraph of the agreement at issue did not deprive arbitrators of authority to determine the purchase price of plaintiff's shares; 3) the award did not exceed the scope of the submission; and 4) the arbitrators acted within the scope of their authority in reaching their conclusion and in setting the price of the stock.

[10/02] Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Dintino
In an action for nonpayment of a home loan, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) as a matter of law, plaintiff-bank's unjust enrichment cause of action based on mistake did not begin to accrue until September 15, 2000, at the earliest; 2) because plaintiff filed its complaint on September 5, 2003, its unjust enrichment cause of action was timely asserted within the applicable three-year statute of limitations; 3) in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication, the trial court correctly concluded plaintiff's unjust enrichment cause of action was timely filed; 4) to the extent the trial court addressed defendant's affirmative defense of unclean hands in its order, that language was mere surplusage and unnecessary to its rejection of his summary judgment motion arguments; and 5) the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the note of execution's attorney's fees provision and Civil Code section 1717.

[09/29] Wachovia Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Toomey
Upon certified questions from the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in a case arising from the termination of two employment contracts, the court answers that: 1) a settlement agreement between two parties that explicitly contains both an assignment of causes of action against a third party insurer and an immediate release of the insured on the same causes of action is valid; 2) the claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising from the relationship between the insurance broker and the insured involving allegations of failure to provide insurance coverage was also assignable as it is analogous to a cause of action for bad faith; and 3) the claim for negligent failure to procure insurance coverage should not have been dismissed as a matter of law, was assignable, and should have been submitted to the jury.

More...