This case involves two separate consumer lawsuits against wireless providers AT&T Mobility and Verizon, where plaintiffs alleged violations of the Communications Act through unauthorized monthly charges for a data service and unsolicited text messages promoting services. The plaintiffs sought to litigate in court and pursue class actions, but the defendants moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act based on arbitration clauses in the service agreements that included class-action waivers. The court granted the motions to compel arbitration, finding the clauses enforceable under Supreme Court precedent in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which upheld such agreements despite class waivers, and rejected arguments that the clauses prevented vindication of statutory rights or were unconscionable. The court dismissed both actions without prejudice to allow the claims to proceed in arbitration.
The case concerns a dispute between nonprofit organizations that certify electronics recyclers, with plaintiff Basel Action Network challenging defendants' 2003 PTO registration of the certification mark "CERTIFIED ELECTRONICS RECYCLER" on the ground that the term is generic. Basel sought cancellation of the mark under the Lanham Act and asserted an unfair competition claim under Section 43(a) based on defendants' use of the term alongside their R2/RIOS certification. The court reviewed defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), assuming the truth of the complaint's allegations. It granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that Basel had stated a plausible unfair competition claim while reiterating that a cancellation claim requires a valid independent cause of action.
In Lyons v. Homecomings Financial LLC, plaintiff Matthew Lyons sued mortgage lender Homecomings and loan servicer Aurora after refinancing his home, alleging that a broker misrepresented key loan terms including interest rates, payment amounts, and negative amortization features on two loans secured by deeds of trust on his property. Lyons brought claims under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) for inadequate disclosures and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) for deceptive practices. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the TILA claims time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations and noting that Lyons had signed documents disclosing the actual terms. For the CPA claim, the court held that no deceptive act occurred because the promissory note allowed payments above the minimum to avoid negative amortization, making it not certain to occur.
The case involves Mirina Corporation suing Marina Biotech for trademark infringement, trade name infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and a violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act after Marina changed its name to Marina Biotech, which Mirina claims is confusingly similar to its “Mirina” mark in the biotech field. Mirina moved for a preliminary injunction to bar Marina from using the “Marina” or “Marina Biotech” marks. The court denied the motion, applying the Winter standard and finding that Mirina had raised only serious questions on the merits of its infringement claim but failed to show a likelihood of irreparable harm or that the balance of hardships tipped in its favor. The court noted the absence of evidence that Mirina had developed reputation or goodwill linked to its mark and that an injunction would impose greater hardship on Marina than on Mirina.
The case involved Anil Rijal, a Nepali citizen, who petitioned USCIS for an employment-based immigrant visa reserved for aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts, based on his career as a film and television producer. USCIS denied the petition after finding that his evidence failed to satisfy the regulatory criteria or demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field. Rijal sued, arguing that the denial was arbitrary and capricious. The court granted summary judgment to USCIS and dismissed the case, concluding that the agency's evaluation of the evidence and application of the standard were rational and consistent with the record.
The case involved Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign's attempt to run a bus advertisement stating 'Israeli War Crimes: Your Tax Dollars at Work' on King County Metro buses. After initial approval, the county revoked permission following thousands of public complaints and threats of violence or vandalism against the buses, citing contract provisions barring ads likely to cause harm, disruption, or imminent lawless action. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the bus advertising space is a nonpublic forum where the county's content-based restrictions are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. The decision rested on the lack of likelihood of success on the First Amendment claim and the balance of equities favoring the county's interest in safety and order.
