Case Summaries

[06/09] Walgreen Co. v. City and County of San Francisco
In plaintiff-Walgreen's challenge to a San Francisco ordinance banning the sale of tobacco products in certain retail establishments that contain a pharmacy, judgment of the trial court sustaining the city's demurrer without leave to amend is reversed in part as Walgreen's complaint adequately states a cause of action alleging an equal protection violation. Here, the challenged distinction among stores containing licensed pharmacies is not fairly related to the object of the prohibition on sales of tobacco products, as there is no rational basis to believe the supposed implied message conveyed by selling tobacco products at a Walgreens that has a licensed pharmacy is different in any meaningful way from the implied message conveyed by selling such products at a supermarket or big box store that contains a licensed pharmacy.

[05/13] Howard v. Walgreen Co.
In an action against Walgreen alleging retaliation claims under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act, judgment for plaintiff is reversed where, even if plaintiff subjectively believed that his supervisor unlawfully discriminated against him when he left a message stating that plaintiff's job was in jeopardy, his belief could not have been objectively reasonable, because the supervisor's warning was not an adverse employment action.

[04/26] Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In a Title VII action alleging discrimination against female employees by Wal-Mart, certification of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) class of current employees with respect to their claims for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and back pay is affirmed where: 1) it was within the district court's discretion, and in line with Falcon, to determine that the commonality prerequisite to class certification was satisfied; 2) decentralized, subjective decision making could contribute to a common question of fact regarding the existence of discrimination; and 3) because the discrimination they claimed to have suffered occurred through alleged common practice -- e.g., excessively subjective decision making in a corporate culture of uniformity and gender stereotyping?the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that their claims were sufficiently typical to satisfy Rule 23(a)(3). With respect to plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages, and as to those class members who no longer worked for Wal-Mart, the certification order is remanded so the district court could consider: 1) whether certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the punitive damages claims would cause monetary relief to predominate; and 2) whether an additional class or classes may be appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) with respect to the claims of former employees.

[04/13] People v. Chappelone
In a conviction of defendants for conspiracy to commit grand theft and related offenses against Target (defendant's employer), trial court's imposition of a restitution order in the amount of $278,678 is reversed, as the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Target a sizable windfall when it ordered restitution in the amount that it did because rather than calculating a rough approximation.

[04/08] Colwell v. Rite Aid Corp.
In an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action claiming constructive discharge based on plaintiff's partial blindness, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where no reasonable juror could find that the actions to which plaintiff referred made her workplace so unbearable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the ADA contemplated that employers may need to make reasonable shift changes in order to accommodate a disabled employee's disability-related difficulties in getting to work.

[04/01] Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton
In plaintiffs' suit challenging a city's approval of a Wal-Mart under CEQA, the judgment of a court of appeal in favor of plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) flaws in the decision-making process underlying a facially valid and properly filed NOE do not prevent the NOE from triggering the 35-day period to file a lawsuit challenging the agency's determination that it has approved a CEQA-exempt project; and 2) plaintiffs' assertion that the NOE itself was defective in form and content, and thus failed to trigger the 35-day limitations period is rejected as as the NOE demonstrates minimal compliance with CEQA and thus, plaintiffs' claims, in the lawsuit filed more than 35 days after the NOE was filed, are barred.

[04/01] Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc.
In an action by Tiffany Inc. against eBay based on sales of counterfeit Tiffany merchandise on eBay, alleging trademark infringement, false advertising, and trademark dilution, judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) a defendant may lawfully use a plaintiff's trademark where doing so is necessary to describe the plaintiff's product and does not imply a false affiliation or endorsement by the plaintiff of the defendant; 2) for contributory trademark infringement liability to lie, a service provider must have more than a general knowledge or reason to know that its service is being used to sell counterfeit goods, and some contemporary knowledge of which particular listings are infringing or will infringe in the future is necessary; and 3) there was no second mark or product at issue here to blur with or to tarnish "Tiffany." However, the judgment is vacated in part as to plaintiff's false advertising claim because the district court failed to determine whether extrinsic evidence indicates that the challenged advertisements were misleading or confusing.

[03/24] Melom v. City of Madera
In plaintiff's suit against a city claiming that it violated CEQA and the city's municipal code by approving a commercial retail shopping center project without preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR after the size of the largest retail space grew from 138,000 square feet to 198,484 square feet, the decision of the trial court is affirmed as there was no violation of section 21166 and plaintiff is incorrect in concluding that whenever a governmental entity approves a project which includes a so-called supercenter, approval of such a project requires an EIR addressing "potential urban decay effects" which might result from the supercenter.

[03/17] Holmes v. Kimco Realty Corp.
In plaintiff's negligence suit against a retailer for injuries he sustained when he fell on ice/snow in the parking lot, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as the state of New Jersey would not impose a duty on an individual tenant for snow removal from the common areas of a multi-tenant parking lot when the landlord has retained and exercised that responsibility.

[03/16] Acevedo v. Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc.
In a class action against defendant-employer, seeking payment of unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the district court's ruling that plaintiffs' claims were improperly joined is affirmed where district courts have considerable discretion to deny joinder when it would not facilitate judicial economy and when different witnesses and documentary proof would be required for plaintiffs' claims. However, dismissal of the action is reversed where misjoinder was not an appropriate ground for dismissal.

[03/15] Kim v. Carter's Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against a children's clothing retailer for damages under Illinois contract and consumer protection law, claiming they were victims of deceptive pricing, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, defendant has fulfilled its obligations under the straightforward, everyday sales contract described in the complaint; and 2) plaintiffs' allegations fail to establish the actual damages element of their Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA) claim.

[12/30] Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
In plaintiff's products liability action against manufacturers and retailers of a power saw that severed his three fingers when his hand came into contact with the saw's unguarded blade, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is vacated and remanded where: 1) district court's denial of motion to remand is affirmed as a procedural defect existing at the time of removal but cured prior to entry of judgment does not warrant reversal and remand of the matter to state court; and 2) district court's exclusion of plaintiff's expert testimony is reversed as the circumstances of the case did not justify such a sanction.

[12/17] Int'l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.
In plaintiff's design patent suit against Walgreens and another defendant involving shoes typically referred to as "clogs", summary judgment in favor of defendants finding that the claims of the asserted patents were invalid as anticipated by a patent assigned to Crocs, Inc. is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded as, although district court correctly held that the ordinary observer test is the sole test of invalidity, it erred, however, in failing to compare the insole patterns in plaintiff's patented designs to the prior art as part of an overall comparison of the designs.

[09/18] In re: Ames Dept. Stores, Inc.
In an appeal from the district court's order affirming a bankruptcy court's order applying section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code to disallow a request for payment of administrative expenses until debtor's predecessor in interest returned a preferential transfer, the order is vacated where section 502(d) does not bar allowance of administrative expenses within the scope of section 503(b).

[07/14] Davidoff v. CVS Corp.
In a trademark infringement action, district court order issuing a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from selling plaintiff's trademarked products with the unique production code removed is affirmed where district court correctly found that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits in its contention that defendant's sales of its products with the UPC removed constituted trademark infringement, as the UPC codes play an important role in controlling quality and helping the trademark owner guard against counterfeits and protect the reputation of the mark.

[06/29] Chapman v. Pier One Imports (U.S.) Inc.
In an Americans with Disabilities Act action alleging failure to provide restroom accommodations in Defendant's store, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed where Plaintiff did not have standing to challenge barriers he did not personally encounter.

[06/15] Kamm v. ITEX Corp.
In a breach of contract action concerning an Independent Retail Brokerage Service Agreement, the District Court's order remanding the action to state court is affirmed, as Plaintiffs' motion to remand was based on a forum selection clause and thus was not subject to the thirty-day requirement of 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c).

[06/11] Gonzalez-Figueroa v. J.C. Penney Puerto Rico, Inc.
In an employment discrimination action, district court judgment is affirmed where the court properly dismissed the age-discrimination relatives' claims as time-barred, as the limitations period began to run when the relatives learned of the principal plaintiff's demotion and continued to run without interruption despite the pendency of that plaintiff's discrimination claim before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The district court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's son's claim as untimely, as he is a minor and the action is tolled until he reaches the age of majority.

[03/30] AmeriFirst Bank v. TJX Cos., Inc.
In a dispute involving the fraudulent use of financial information, district court's judgment is affirmed in part where: 1) the court did not err in refusing to dismiss plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claims as it was adequately alleged under rule 12(b)(6); 2) court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's negligence claim as there was no personal injury or property damage; 3) breach of contract claim properly failed as plaintiff's were not parties to the contracts and not third party beneficiaries; and 4) court properly denied class certification. Order is vacated in part where the court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A as the allegations are sufficient for the claim to go forward based on the unfairness theory.

[03/17] Liberty Lincoln-Mercury Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
In a dispute over a franchise fee program, district court order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs is reversed and remanded where the district court did not make the necessary finding of irreparable harm to grant the injunction, as plaintiff's harm was incorrectly measured in solely monetary terms.

Back to Main