This case involved Seirus Innovative Accessories suing Cabela's and Ross Glove for alleged infringement of three patents covering designs and features of neck protectors, sport goggles combined with protective clothing, and mask-and-scarf articles of clothing. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment of non-infringement on the design patent (D510,652) and the utility patent (6,272,690) after applying claim construction and finding that the accused products did not meet the patent limitations as a matter of law. It denied summary judgment on the remaining utility patent (5,214,804) because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the accused Soft Shell product's edges intersected in the temple area and whether other claim elements were satisfied. The rulings followed the standard for summary judgment under Rule 56 and the two-step analysis for design patent infringement, with all inferences drawn in favor of the non-moving party where disputes remained.
In Rodriguez v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., the plaintiff sued JP Morgan Chase & Co. and MTC Financial Inc. in connection with a 2006 mortgage loan on his property, alleging violations of California foreclosure statutes (Civil Code §§ 2923.5 and 2923.6), fraud, intentional misrepresentation, TILA, and the UCL after the loan was acquired by JP Morgan Chase Bank following Washington Mutual's failure. The defendants moved to dismiss, and the plaintiff failed to file any opposition. The court granted the motions to dismiss without prejudice, holding that JP Morgan Chase & Co. was not a proper defendant because it was merely the parent company and had no direct involvement with the loan or servicing, which were handled by subsidiaries; it also noted the absence of opposition and allowed the plaintiff 30 days to amend.
This case is a consolidated consumer class action in which plaintiffs alleged that Ferrero U.S.A. deceptively labeled and advertised Nutella spread as healthy and suitable for children despite its high sugar and fat content. Plaintiffs asserted claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and for breach of express and implied warranties. The court granted in part and denied in part Ferrero's motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge website statements because they had not actually relied on them, but allowing the remaining claims based on product labels and television ads to proceed after finding the allegations sufficient to state claims under the applicable statutes and warranty doctrines.
This case is a consolidated consumer class action against Ferrero U.S.A., Inc., in which plaintiffs allege that the company misleadingly promoted Nutella spread as healthy for children despite its high sugar content, asserting claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and express and implied warranty doctrines. Defendant moved to transfer the action from the Southern District of California to the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for the convenience of parties and witnesses. The court denied the motion without prejudice after weighing the Jones factors, concluding that plaintiffs' choice of their home forum was entitled to deference given their residence and purchases in the district and lack of forum shopping, the first-to-file rule gave priority to this earlier-filed action, and other considerations such as relative court congestion weighed against transfer or were neutral.
In Peviani v. Natural Balance, Inc., the plaintiff brought a class action alleging that Natural Balance’s “Cobra Sexual Energy” dietary supplement contained false and misleading labeling statements, in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The defendant moved to dismiss, contending that the court lacked jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act because the amount in controversy was speculative, that the fraud-based claims failed to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirements, that the challenged statements were non-actionable puffery, and that the plaintiff was unsuitable as a class representative. The court denied the motion, ruling that the complaint’s good-faith allegation of over $5 million in controversy sufficed for jurisdiction, that the pleadings adequately identified the statements and plaintiff’s reliance, that the statements were sufficiently specific to survive a puffery challenge at the pleading stage, and that class-representative issues are properly raised at the certification stage rather than on a motion to dismiss.
In this case, developers who purchased general liability insurance policies with advance premiums from Gemini Insurance Company sued for declaratory relief after failing to build as many homes as planned, seeking return of unearned premiums under California Insurance Code Section 481.5(b)(1) due to alleged coverage reduction. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The court reasoned that the policy endorsements explicitly made the premiums fully earned after specified dates, which had passed, and the plaintiffs' inability to complete construction did not constitute a reduction in coverage under the statute, as the insurer remained liable for existing risks. The dismissal was without leave to amend as further amendment would be futile.
