This case involved homeowners Marilene O. Rosa and Adamado de Souza Oliveira challenging the validity of a mortgage assignment and subsequent foreclosure on their Massachusetts property. The plaintiffs alleged that MERS lacked authority to assign the mortgage to HSBC entities after the original lender dissolved, sought declarations that the assignments were invalid and that the assignees were not bona fide purchasers, demanded production of the original note, and claimed slander of title. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The core reasoning was that MERS, as nominee mortgagee, had authority to assign the mortgage regardless of note possession, the dissolution of the original lender did not invalidate the assignment, and the plaintiffs failed to state viable claims for the relief sought.
In this copyright dispute over kitchen design software, Real View sought a declaratory judgment that its ProKitchen program did not infringe 20-20's copyrighted 20-20 Design software, after Real View had illegally downloaded a copy of version 6.1 and used it during development; 20-20 counterclaimed for infringement and damages. The jury found no infringement by the final ProKitchen product but awarded 20-20 over $1.37 million based solely on the illegal download, prompting Real View's motion for a new trial or remittitur. The court remitted the award to $4,200 plus 12% prejudgment interest, the amount of the license fee 20-20 charged at the time, on the ground that the evidence did not support additional actual damages or infringer profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) because any connection between the download and Real View's profits was too attenuated once the jury determined the competing product itself did not infringe.
This case concerned claims by Kaiser health plans against Pfizer and its subsidiary for off-label marketing of the drug Neurontin (gabapentin) for conditions such as bipolar disorder, which allegedly violated California's Unfair Competition Law. Following a multi-week trial, the district court previously found defendants liable and awarded plaintiffs over $95 million in restitution. In this post-judgment ruling on defendants' Rule 52(b) motion to amend findings, the court allowed the motion in part and denied it in part, addressing the parent company's standing to recover damages incurred by its regional subsidiaries, upholding the validity of an expert's causation analysis that attributed prescriptions to fraudulent promotion, and correcting an exhibit reference regarding marketing materials sent to neurologists.
This case involved claims by health insurer Kaiser against Pfizer alleging that the company fraudulently marketed the drug Neurontin for off-label uses such as neuropathic pain, bipolar disorder, and migraine by suppressing negative clinical trial data and promoting positive information. After a trial, a jury found Pfizer liable under RICO and awarded damages that were trebled, and the court separately awarded restitution under California's Unfair Competition Law. Defendants moved for a new trial or to alter the judgment, seeking to introduce a 2011 Cochrane review on gabapentin and arguing other grounds such as a pass-on defense. The court denied the motion, holding that the new review did not constitute newly discovered evidence likely to change the result, that fraud-by-omission was established, and that the pass-on theory was not viable under applicable precedent.
In United States v. Turner, petitioner Bruce Turner filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 after his conviction for unlawful possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal as well as a challenge to the use of a prior state conviction as an ACCA predicate. The court denied the petition in full. It held that additional ineffective assistance theories raised in a later memorandum did not relate back to the timely original filing and were therefore barred by the one-year statute of limitations, while the challenge to the prior conviction failed because the petitioner’s affidavit alleging an uninformed waiver of counsel was not credible and lacked corroboration. The court noted that any successful invalidation of the predicate conviction in state court could later support resentencing but found no constitutional defect on the present record.
Boston Gas sought indemnification from Century Indemnity under liability insurance policies for costs to remediate environmental contamination at a former manufactured gas plant site known as Commercial Point, after a jury had awarded it approximately $1.7 million under an 'all sums' allocation theory. Following intervening rulings from the First Circuit and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court establishing a pro rata allocation method for long-tail environmental claims, the district court addressed post-verdict motions from both parties. The court vacated the verdict and granted a new trial limited to determining the timing and allocation of property damage as well as the application of the owned-property exclusion, because the jury instructions had been based on the superseded all-sums approach and the verdict on the exclusion was against the weight of the evidence; it also denied Boston Gas's motion for entry of judgment, ruled that Massachusetts prejudgment interest would apply once damages are finally determined, and issued a declaratory judgment on past damages.
