Case Summaries

[09/10] UFCW Local 1776 v. Eli Lilly & Co.
In a putative class action against Eli Lilly, manufacturer of the drug Zyprexa, asserting a civil RICO violation predicated on mail fraud, conspiracy to violate RICO, violation of state consumer protection laws, common-law fraud, and unjust enrichment based on Lilly's alleged misrepresentations about Zyprexa's efficacy and safety, the certification of a class and denial of summary judgment are vacated where: 1) because plaintiffs' excess price theory was not susceptible to generalized proof with respect to either but-for or proximate causation, class certification based on this theory was an abuse of discretion; and 2) the district court did not consider individual claims under plaintiffs' quantity effect theory when it ruled on Lilly's motion for summary judgment.

[09/09] Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. AMZ Ins. Serv., Inc.
In a title company's suit claiming that the "Evidence of Property Insurance" (EOI) issued by the defendant-insurer was an enforceable binder and alleging that the insurer and its owner breached the terms of the EOI and engaged in bad faith by denying coverage for the homeowner's loss, trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err by instructing the jury the EOI was a binder of insurance and by denying defendants' motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which asserted the EOI was not a binder as a matter of law; 2) the EOI included all of the required elements for a binder under Ins. Code section 382.5(a) and was issued in accordance with procedures established by defendant for binding coverage in escrow transactions; 3) substantial evidence supported the jury's findings of agency and bad faith; and 4) the trial court did not err by denying defendants' motion based on the doctrine of superior equities or by denying defendants' motion for a judgment of indemnity against third-party insurer.

[09/09] Baseload Energy, Inc. v. Roberts
In plaintiff's action seeking a declaratory judgment that defendant's patent related to a flying wind turbine was invalid and unenforceable, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment in holding that the terms of the parties' 2008 settlement agreement barred all claims between the parties is reversed as the language of the settlement agreement did not release either claims of infringement of the patent or the accompanying defenses of invalidity or unenforceability.

[09/08] Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Univ. Crop Protection Alliance, LLC
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that a pollution exclusion in defendant's insurance policy relieved plaintiff of any obligation to defend or indemnify defendant, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) in the insurance policy coverage context, a declaratory judgment action is ripe irrespective of whether the underlying litigation is ongoing or resolved; and 2) the underlying complaint made clear the relofted particulates at issue were toxic, and therefore, would qualify as "pollutants" under the policy.

[09/08] McKissick v. Yuen
In an action against plaintiff's former company and two of its former officers, accusing them of perpetrating a fraud that rendered her stock options in the company worthless, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the parties' separation agreement unambiguously barred plaintiff's claims; and 2) although the separation agreement entitled defendant to recoup the attorney's fees it incurred in defending the suit, the agreement did not permit the company to recover the fees it incurred in prosecuting a counterclaim against plaintiff.

[09/08] Butler v. Yusem
In a dispute over an agreement to construct a commercial retail and office building, the Fourth District court's holding that failure to establish justifiable reliance is a bar to recovery based on fraudulent misrepresentation is quashed, as the district court failed to properly apply the tipsy coachman principle, and the matter is remanded for the trial court to reconsider whether plaintiff is entitled to relief based on his claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation.

[09/08] Rafael Rodriguez Barril, Inc. v. Conbraco Indus., Inc.
In a contract dispute, district court's finding that a forum selection clause in the contract was not displaced by Puerto Rico's Sales Representatives Act of 1990, in dismissing the suit is affirmed as, the substantive issues as to choice of law, as well as the merits of the contract termination controversy, are to be resolved in the forum chosen by the parties. Here, the forum selection clause in the agreement fixes North Carolina, and the forum selection clause is not forbidden by Law 21.

[09/07] Alday v. Raytheon Co.
In an action alleging that defendant breached collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with plaintiffs and violated the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the language of the CBAs made clear that defendant's agreement to pay retiree medical insurance premiums continued beyond the term of the CBAs, even where its agreement to pay non-retired employee premiums did not; 2) defendant's leeway to amend its benefit plans did not allow it to alter the terms of the CBAs under which it agreed to provide company-paid health insurance to retirees; and 3) plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts supporting their claim for punitive and extra-contractual damages.

[09/03] F.B.T. Prods., LLC v. Aftermath Records
In a dispute concerning the percentage of royalties due to plaintiffs under their contracts with defendant in connection with the recordings of the rapper Eminem, judgment in favor of defendant is reversed and an attorney's fees award in its favor is vacated where: 1) a "Masters Licensed" provision unambiguously applies to permanent downloads and mastertones; and 2) thus, the district court should have granted summary judgment to plaintiffs.

[09/03] Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

[09/03] SmallBizPros, Inc. v. MacDonald
In an appeal arising from the entry of a contempt order against defendant enforcing a settlement agreement with plaintiff, the contempt order is vacated and remanded where, although the parties and the district court likely intended for the district court to retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement, a stipulation effectively dismissed the case when it was filed, and thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

[09/02] Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nat'l. Union Ins. Co.
In an action by one insurer against another seeking $10 million in subrogation proceeds, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff waived certain rights by refusing repeated invitations to participate in subrogation discussions. However, the judgment is reversed in part where, as the excess insurer, plaintiff was entitled to a priority interest in the subrogation proceeds representing insured losses.

[09/02] Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Inc.
In a suit for common law trade dress of a French-press coffee maker known as the Chambord, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as, Article 4 of the parties' contract is clear and precise as it allows defendant to sell the coffee maker design anywhere except France - provided that it does not use the Chambord or Melior names and does not use plaintiff's supply channels for four years.

[09/02] Atlantic Nat'l Trust LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.
In an action seeking insurance proceeds arising from a fire, defendants' appeal from the grant of plaintiff's motion to remand is dismissed where the court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review a federal district court order remanding a case to state court based on a ground colorably characterized as a "defect" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c).

[09/01] US ex rel. SNAPP v. Ford Motor Co.
District court's denial of plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint concluding that the proposed amended complaint, which included a list of contracts that the government allegedly entered into as a result of fraudulent representations on the part of Ford, did not allege with sufficient particularity the existence of a "claim" as defined by the False Claims Act (FCA), is affirmed as, because no holding of Bledsoe II affected the circuit's law on the questions at issue before the district court, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that its original rationale for not permitting plaintiff to file its second amended complaint pursuant to Rule 59(e) still obtained and that permitting such a filing was not otherwise "required in order to prevent an injustice."

Back to Main