In this bankruptcy appeal, Bank of the West challenged the bankruptcy court's allowance of Jed Connell's $160,151 claim against debtor Llennoc Real Estate, LLC for unpaid salary, fees, and expenses under a 2004 Management and Compensation Agreement signed by Connell and his parents. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling in full. It held that, under Bankruptcy Rule 3003, Llennoc's Chapter 11 schedules listing the claim as undisputed provided prima facie validity, so the Bank bore the burden of rebuttal. The court also found the Agreement ambiguous as to the capacity in which Connell's parents signed and therefore permitted extrinsic evidence showing they acted on Llennoc's behalf, supporting allowance of the claim at the proven amount rather than the lower scheduled figure.
The case involves a dispute between Basic Research and the FTC over the interpretation of a 2006 consent order and settlement agreement that resolved prior administrative actions regarding advertising claims for dietary supplements like Akavar and Relacore. Under the agreement, Basic Research must possess a 'reasonable basis' for its representations consisting of 'competent and reliable scientific evidence,' which the company argues the FTC is attempting to undermine through additional requirements in an ongoing enforcement action. Basic Research sought a declaratory judgment clarifying the standard, while the FTC moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and argued the suit improperly interfered with enforcement proceedings. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that it had authority to interpret the consent order as a contract and that the action did not unduly encroach on agency enforcement, and it granted Basic Research's motion to consolidate the cases.
Ruth A. Lee sued the Bureau of Reclamation under Secretary Kenneth L. Salazar, claiming sex and age discrimination through disparate treatment in training and promotions, a hostile work environment, retaliation, Equal Pay Act violations, and constructive termination. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied Lee's motion for summary judgment in full. It denied the defendant's motion on the retaliation and Equal Pay Act claims but granted it on the disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and constructive termination claims, finding insufficient evidence to support those allegations.
This case involves a challenge by Utahns for Ethical Government to Utah Code section 20A-7-206(8), which requires public disclosure of the names and addresses of signers on initiative petitions, on grounds that the provision unconstitutionally burdens free speech rights under the First Amendment both facially and as applied to their petition for government ethics reform. The district court had previously issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the disclosure requirement pending the Supreme Court's decision in John Doe #1 v. Reed. After Reed upheld the facial validity of similar public disclosure laws for referendum petitions, the defendants moved to vacate the injunction. The court denied the motion and kept the preliminary injunction in place, reasoning that Reed did not foreclose the plaintiffs' separate as-applied challenge based on specific risks of harassment or intimidation to their petition signers.
This case involved claims by Philips Electronics against BCT for discovery violations, including the intentional spoliation of over 17,800 documents central to the litigation, followed by attempts to conceal the deletions and false statements under oath by BCT executives. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, striking BCT's answer, dismissing its counterclaims, entering default judgment on liability in Philips' favor, and referring the matter to the U.S. Attorney's Office for potential criminal prosecution. The court applied the Ehrenhaus factors to assess sanctions, finding substantial prejudice to plaintiffs, significant interference with the judicial process, high culpability on the part of BCT through its upper management, and that lesser sanctions would be inadequate given the willful misconduct and cover-up. The ruling did not extend to a non-party entity. BCT's objections, including claims of following counsel's advice or that prejudice was remedied, were rejected as not credible.
The case involved a trademark dispute between two online sellers of replacement contact lenses. Plaintiff 1-800 Contacts alleged that Defendant Lens.com infringed its registered service marks by bidding on them as keywords in search engine advertising programs like Google AdWords, which generated sponsored links that could confuse consumers about source or affiliation. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on its infringement and secondary liability claims, as well as on certain defenses, while Defendant sought summary judgment dismissing all claims. The court held that purchasing keywords constitutes a 'use in commerce' under trademark law and granted Plaintiff's motion on that defense, but otherwise denied Plaintiff's motions and granted Defendant summary judgment on the infringement claims. The decision rested on the absence of a likelihood of confusion or other required elements for liability despite the commercial use of the marks.