This case is a class action brought by Northstar Financial Advisors on behalf of shareholders in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund, alleging that the fund and its managers deviated from the stated investment objective of tracking the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate Bond Index by purchasing high-risk non-agency collateralized mortgage obligations and by concentrating more than 25% of assets in mortgage-backed securities, resulting in substantial losses. The complaint asserted claims for violation of Section 13(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and related theories. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The core reasoning was that there is no private right of action under ICA Section 13(a), the state-law claims were precluded by SLUSA because they alleged misrepresentations in connection with securities transactions, fiduciary-duty claims could only be brought derivatively rather than directly under Massachusetts law, and the plaintiffs failed to establish third-party beneficiary status under the relevant contracts.
In Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Apple sued Samsung for infringement of its trade dress, trademarks, and utility and design patents based on Samsung's Galaxy cell phones and tablets. Samsung moved to compel expedited discovery of samples, packaging, and inserts for Apple's unreleased next-generation iPhone and iPad to prepare an opposition to a potential preliminary injunction. The court denied the motion, concluding that Samsung had not shown good cause because Apple's future products were not relevant to the issues in the preliminary injunction proceedings and the requested discovery did not match the reciprocal needs identified earlier in the case.
The case involves plaintiff Joseph Ciampi suing the City of Palo Alto and police officers after an incident where officers responded to a complaint about him living in his van, used a ruse to get him out, and deployed a Taser to arrest him, leading to dismissed criminal charges. Ciampi alleged violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law claims including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, defamation, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment. The court granted summary judgment to defendants on the §1983 claim, defamation, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment/false arrest, but denied it on assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The reasoning centered on whether officers' actions, including the use of a bluff to induce exit from the van and the Taser deployment, constituted excessive force or other violations, finding no triable issues on some claims but genuine disputes on others.
This case is a class action lawsuit by purchasers of HP OfficeJet Pro 8500 series printers, alleging that HP made false or misleading marketing claims about the printers' scanning and copying speeds via the automatic document feeder, when a design defect actually caused frequent page-skipping. The court previously denied in part HP's motion to dismiss the UCL and CLRA claims on the ground that those statutes could impose liability for affirmative misrepresentations without proof of the defendant's prior knowledge of the defect. On reconsideration, the court grants HP's motion, vacates that portion of the prior order, and dismisses the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. The court reasons that, consistent with authority interpreting the FAL and related consumer-protection statutes, plaintiffs must plausibly allege that HP knew or should have known of the defect when it made the challenged representations.
In Summers v. Delta Airlines, Inc., an 84-year-old plaintiff with mobility limitations sued Delta and Mesaba after falling and injuring herself while exiting a flight in San Jose without the wheelchair assistance she had prearranged, alleging violations of California Civil Code sections 2100 and 2101 plus common-law negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds that the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 and its DOT regulations preempt all state-law claims and that the complaint was otherwise deficient. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the ACAA preempts state standards of care for airline passenger assistance but does not displace state remedies or causes of action, so the claims could proceed under the federal standard supplied by ACAA regulations. The court reasoned that the statute’s administrative enforcement scheme and savings clauses indicate Congress did not intend to eliminate state tort recovery for personal injuries.
This case concerns patent infringement claims brought by Fujitsu against several defendants, including Taiwanese and California corporations, alleging that they made, sold, or imported wireless interface cards and related products infringing the Ozawa Patent on card-type input/output devices. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss, denying those based on insufficient service of process while quashing the existing service, denying the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over D-Link Corp., and granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Core reasoning focused on compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6), including standards for service on foreign entities, stream-of-commerce contacts with California, and the sufficiency of allegations for direct and indirect infringement under applicable pleading precedents.