In Hobbs v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance, plaintiff Dennis Hobbs challenged the termination of his long-term disability benefits by defendant Hartford, which had been paying benefits since 1995 due to cardiovascular conditions. The court granted Hartford's motion for judgment on the administrative record and denied Hobbs's cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision was based on surveillance footage showing physical activity, a stress test indicating capability for certain exertion, and medical opinions from reviewing physicians concluding that Hobbs could perform full-time sedentary work, making the termination of benefits reasonable under the plan's "total disability" definition requiring inability to engage in any qualified occupation.
The case concerned plaintiffs Community of Christ Copyright Corp. and Community of Christ, owners of multiple federal registered trademarks and common-law rights in names and designs such as REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, RLDS, and associated peace seals, who sued defendants Devon Park Restoration Branch of Jesus Christ’s Church and its minister for using those marks without permission on church signage, a website, literature, seals, flags, and certificates. Plaintiffs asserted claims for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125, and sought summary judgment plus a permanent injunction; defendants raised counterclaims for cancellation and opposed on grounds including religious beliefs. The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in full, dismissed the counterclaims, and entered a permanent injunction ordering defendants to cease all use of the marks, alter their sign and website, remove displays, and notify publishers. The reasoning centered on plaintiffs’ ownership and continuous use of the marks for over a century, defendants’ admitted unauthorized use creating a likelihood of confusion, the absence of any genuine issues of material fact, and the need for neutrality under the First Amendment that precluded consideration of religious tenets in the trademark analysis.
In United States v. Davison, the Government moved for summary judgment and a permanent injunction, alleging that certified public accountant and attorney Allen R. Davison had for over a decade promoted multiple abusive tax arrangements—including sham management companies, ESOPs, Roth IRAs, 412(i) plans, chicken-farming deductions, inflated basis claims, and tool-reimbursement programs—while failing to register as a material advisor by filing Form 8264. Davison cross-moved for summary judgment, denying personal promotion of unlawful schemes and asserting First Amendment protection for his tax advice. The court denied both motions, holding that material factual disputes existed concerning whether the arrangements lacked substantial authority, the extent of Davison’s role in advising clients and ensuring compliance with corporate formalities, and whether he qualified as a material advisor. The court further noted that the First Amendment would not shield commercial speech promoting unlawful or fraudulent tax activities if those facts were ultimately proven.
This case is a patent infringement dispute between Cerner Corporation and Visicu, Inc. involving two patents ('656 and '708) for remote ICU patient monitoring systems, along with related counterclaims for trade secret misappropriation. Cerner sought declaratory judgments of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability, while Visicu asserted infringement claims (direct, contributory, and induced) and misappropriation. The court denied Cerner's summary judgment motions on non-infringement, invalidity, and willful infringement, denied Visicu's motion asserting no inequitable conduct, granted Cerner's motion on intervening rights, and granted in part and denied in part Cerner's motion on trade secret misappropriation, primarily due to disputed issues of material fact on most claims but sufficient evidence or legal bars on the granted motions.
The case involved a dispute between the Community of Christ church entities, which own federal registrations and common law rights in trademarks including 'RLDS,' 'REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS,' and related design marks, and the Devon Park Restoration Branch, a separate church group using those marks on signage, a website, literature, seals, and certificates without authorization. Plaintiffs sued for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125 after defendants refused to cease use. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding they demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits because the marks were valid, not abandoned through nonuse or uncontrolled licensing, and defendants' unauthorized use created a likelihood of confusion. It also found irreparable harm, that the balance of equities favored plaintiffs, and that the public interest supported relief, ordering defendants to stop using the marks, alter their sign and website, cover displays, notify publishers, and file compliance affidavits while posting a $1,000 bond.
In Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., plaintiff Jeremy Braden sued Wal-Mart and several of its officers and committee members, alleging that they breached fiduciary duties under ERISA by selecting mutual fund options for the company's large 401(k) plan that charged excessive fees, failing to disclose material information about those fees to participants, engaging in prohibited transactions involving revenue sharing, and failing to monitor or prevent co-fiduciaries from breaching their duties, resulting in substantial losses to plan participants. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion and dismissed the case in its entirety. The core reasoning centered on the plaintiff's lack of standing for claims predating his own participation in the plan, failure to plausibly allege that the revenue-sharing arrangements fell outside ERISA exemptions, and insufficient pleading of breaches regarding mandatory disclosures or monitoring duties.
