FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Contracts

[03/09] George's Inc. v. Allianz Global Risks US Ins. Co.
In an action against an insurer claiming that defendant failed to indemnify plaintiff for business expenses and personal property losses as required under the terms of its insurance policy, partial summary judgment for defendant on the personal property claim is affirmed, but a partial denial of summary judgment on the business expenses claim is reversed where the policy unambiguously excludes coverage for plaintiff's claimed losses.

[03/09] HealthEast Bethesda Hosp. v. United Commercial Travelers of Am.
In an action for breach of an insurance settlement contract, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) defendant was not an unsophisticated party because it had significant experience in handling and negotiating claims with healthcare providers; 2) because defendant bore the risk of mistake, the district court properly denied rescission based on unilateral mistake; and 3) the record of inaction by defendant strongly supported the denial of relief under both unilateral and mutual mistake.

[03/09] Hoopa Valley Tribe v. US
In an action against the United States for breach of fiduciary duty brought by the Hoopa Valley Tribe, arising from the distribution of the remainder in a Settlement Fund established under the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act only to the Yurok Tribe, summary judgment in favor of the government is vacated and remanded where: 1) the Hoopa Valley Tribe lacks standing because it cannot show an injury in fact; but 2) the matter should have been dismissed without prejudice

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[03/09] Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.

[03/09] Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming excessive force by defendants-officers, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to show as a matter of law that plaintiff's decedent did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; 2) the district court properly found that defendants failed to show as a matter of law that the emergency and exigency exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applied; 3) defendants failed to show that there were no questions of fact regarding whether a security guard had apparent authority to consent and implied consent; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the officers intentionally or recklessly provoked a confrontation.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

More...

Landlord Tenant

[03/03] Fed. Ins. Co. v. Commerce Ins. Co.
In plaintiff-insurance company's subrogation claim, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in concluding that the implied coinsured doctrine controlled the outcome in this case and precluded the plaintiff from pursuing a subrogation claim is affirmed as plaintiff has not met its burden of proving that the "Responsibility for Damages" provision of a Residence and Care Agreement (RCA) overcomes the presumption that the landlord's insurance is held for the mutual benefit of both parties.

[02/09] Chacon v. Litke
In a wrongful eviction action, judgment in favor of plaintiffs-tenants concluding that defendants violated the San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance is affirmed where: 1) defendants' interpretation of the Ordinance as conditioning a tenant's right to reoccupy the unit upon compliance with a 60-day notice is rejected; 2) substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the stipulation gave defendants temporary possession of the apartment for up to three months to make repairs and the plaintiffs retained their rights under the Ordinance to reoccupy the premises; 3) the litigation privilege did not apply to defendant's conduct in refusing to allow the plaintiffs to reoccupy the apartment; 4) trial court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings on the affirmative defenses; and 5) trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiffs' attorney's fees.

[02/01] Woodlands Park Mgmt., LLC. v. City of E. Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Bd.
Trial court's holding that the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance (RSO), adopted by the citizens of the City of East Palo Alto, permitted recovery of attorney fees by a landlord in successful litigation against the city is reversed as the intent of the electorate was that section 15.A.5 of the RSO authorize the recovery of attorney fees only in civil proceedings between landlords and tenants to enforce their respective rights under the RSO, and no other provision of the RSO provides for an award of fees against the city.

More...

Trade Secrets

[02/12] Ansys, Inc. v. Computational Dynamics N. Am., Ltd.
In plaintiff's suit against its former employee and his new employer (a competitor) claiming breach of noncompetition and confidentiality clauses in the employee's employment contract, interference with contractual relations, misappropriation of trade secrets, and unfair trade practices, denial of plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction to enforce the provisions of a one-year noncompetition clause in the employment agreement is affirmed as the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that plaintiff has failed to make a showing of likelihood of success on the breach of contract claim, or a likelihood of irreparable injury.

[12/29] Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiff's action under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act claiming that the defendants misappropriated certain trade secrets belonging to plaintiff, trial court's dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had forfeited its standing to maintain an action for misappropriation when it had gone through bankruptcy proceedings shortly after filing the complaint is reversed where: 1) a current ownership requirement is not supported by general principles of property or tort law; 2) existing authority imposes no "current ownership requirement" on trade secret plaintiffs; 3) adoption of a current ownership requirement in trade secrets cases is not warranted by analogy to trademark, patent, or copyright law; and 4) no policy concern preponderates in favor of current ownership requirement.

[12/03] Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp.
In a patent infringement action involving patents related to rapid-hardening, high-strength cement, summary judgments finding noninfringement and that no trade secret was violated is affirmed in part, dismissed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) district court's finding of noninfringement is vacated and remanded as the court erred in claim construction of the the term "soluble CaSo4 anhydride"; 2) district court's grant of summary judgment of laches is reversed and remanded relating to one patent as it was not clear that plaintiff knew or should have known of defendant's alleged infringement before it conducted discovery on another patent in 2002; 3) district court erred in granting summary judgment finding that one patent claim was indefinite; 4) plaintiffs' appeal with respect to one patent is dismissed as it waived the argument of its invalidity; 5) denial of plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint is affirmed; 6) summary judgment finding no trade secret violations is affirmed; 7) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to disqualify defendants' attorneys; and 8) the district court's decision on exceptional case status is vacated for further proceedings on remand.

More...