This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which plaintiff Nielsen alleged that defendant comScore's software products and services directly and indirectly infringed five U.S. patents related to monitoring, collecting, and analyzing personal computer and internet usage data. comScore moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss certain counts of Nielsen's First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, while Nielsen moved to dismiss one of comScore's counterclaims alleging infringement of a separate patent. Applying the plausibility standard from Twombly and Iqbal, along with Federal Circuit guidance on patent pleading requirements, the court examined whether the complaints contained sufficient factual allegations identifying the patents, the parties, and the accused infringing activities. The court concluded that both the amended complaint and the counterclaim met these standards by providing adequate details about the patents, ownership, and the functionality of the accused products or services. Accordingly, the court denied both motions to dismiss.
The case involved a former Postal Service letter carrier who sued the Postmaster General and USPS after his employment was terminated for failing to disclose a 1986 misdemeanor conviction on his job application form, despite his claim that the conviction should have been expunged and that a background check had resulted in favorable action and a promotion. Plaintiff alleged breach of express and implied contracts based on the employment application and the agency's Employee Labor Relations Manual, as well as promissory estoppel. The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the cited documents and statements did not create enforceable contractual obligations and that the facts alleged did not support an estoppel claim preventing termination.
This case involved a non-party, attorney Robert L. Vaughn, who filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions against defendant Atlas IT Export Corp. Vaughn alleged that Atlas made material misrepresentations about him in filings related to a default judgment and venue change in an underlying contract dispute between Pinpoint IT Services and Atlas, as well as in related Puerto Rico proceedings and private communications. The court denied the motion, holding that Vaughn lacked standing because, as a non-party merely mentioned in the documents and not an involuntary participant or named defendant, he was not among those typically permitted to seek Rule 11 sanctions. The reasoning emphasized that Rule 11 aims to deter baseless filings by parties and participants in litigation, that extending standing here would undermine court efficiency, and that Vaughn could pursue alternative remedies such as a state-law defamation action or bar complaint.
The case involved plaintiff Bridgett Edwards's Title VII retaliation claim against her employer Murphy-Brown, alleging that after she and a coworker reported repeated sexual harassment by male migrant coworkers—including incidents of peeping through drilled holes in a shower door—their supervisor belittled their complaints, failed to investigate or discipline anyone, and reassigned Edwards to another facility while implying she should quit. Defendant moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the amended Count II for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion, holding that the amended complaint plausibly alleged both protected activity (complaints about conditions that could reasonably be viewed as creating a hostile work environment) and an adverse employment action (reassignment and related conduct), satisfying the prima facie elements under the applicable pleading standards.
In Sherman v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., the plaintiff sought to enjoin foreclosure on his Virginia Beach home after the loan servicer denied his application for modification under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program, despite earlier trial payments and correspondence. The plaintiff asserted state-law claims of breach of contract, negligence, and fraud against the servicer and substitute trustee, and moved to remand the removed case to state court. The court denied remand, holding that diversity jurisdiction existed because the trustee was fraudulently joined, and dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c). The court reasoned that no enforceable contract to modify the loan was formed, the servicer owed no tort duty in processing the modification request, and the fraud allegations failed to plead a misrepresentation or justifiable reliance.
This case involved plaintiff Tattoo Art, Inc. suing defendants TAT International, LLC and Kirk Knapp for breach of a license agreement and copyright infringement related to the use of plaintiff's tattoo designs on stencils and other products. After previously granting partial summary judgment on liability, the court held a trial limited to damages and now issues findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the evidence presented, including witness credibility determinations favoring the plaintiff's account of gross sales figures. The court awarded plaintiff unpaid royalties calculated from defendants' sales, along with a permanent injunction prohibiting further use or distribution of infringing materials, an order for impoundment and delivery of such materials, and certification of compliance. These remedies were grounded in the terms of the license agreement, evidence of unauthorized sales after termination, and applicable copyright law remedies.