William Haskell Alsup

The case concerned a First Amendment challenge by CTIA—The Wireless Association to a San Francisco ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to display posters, hand out fact sheets, and affix statements on display materials informing customers about radiofrequency (RF) energy emissions from phones and ways to reduce exposure. The court upheld the fact-sheet requirement (with required corrections to remove misleading language) but enjoined the poster and sticker/display requirements. It reasoned that while the city could require purely factual, non-misleading disclosures under its “precautionary principle,” the ordinance’s other compelled speech was alarmist and not strictly factual, given the absence of evidence linking cell phones to cancer, contrary FCC guidance on SAR values and RF risks, and the weak basis for implying imminent harm; the balance of equities supported only the corrected fact-sheet component pending further review.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

In Oracle America v. Google, Oracle accused Google of copyright infringement by copying elements of Java’s application programming interfaces (APIs), including 37 API package specifications and 12 code files, for use in the Android platform. The court partially granted Google’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the names of the items in the disputed API specifications are not protected by copyright, but denied the motion on all other grounds. The court found genuine factual disputes that prevented summary judgment on direct and indirect infringement, particularly on whether Google’s use qualified as fair use under the four statutory factors. Those disputes centered on the purpose and character of the use, the amount taken, and—most notably—whether Android harmed or benefited the market for Java, with evidence on both sides that a jury would need to weigh. The order left unresolved whether other aspects of the API specifications or their arrangement were copyrightable or infringed.

business & regulatoryproperty

In this RICO/VICAR criminal prosecution, defendant Guillermo Herrera sought to introduce expert testimony from Dr. Scott Fraser to challenge the reliability of an eyewitness identification in a daytime homicide, citing factors such as distance, weapons focus, and stress that purportedly rendered the identification unreliable. After a Daubert evidentiary hearing, the court excluded Dr. Fraser's proposed testimony in its entirety. The court found that the testimony had limited probative value because it went beyond established science into unjustified extrapolations, creating too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinions offered. The court further determined that any potential benefits were outweighed by a high risk of juror confusion, unfair prejudice, and waste of time under Rule 403, compounded by inadequate expert disclosure under Rule 16.

criminal lawprocedure

In this putative class action, two heavy Marlboro smokers sought to represent a statewide class of asymptomatic smokers over age fifty with at least a twenty-pack-year history, requesting that Philip Morris establish and fund a court-supervised low-dose CT lung-cancer screening program; they alleged that the cigarettes contained a design defect because safer alternative designs with fewer carcinogens were feasible. The court denied the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining claims, granted summary judgment on the implied-warranty and Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims but denied it as to the strict-liability design-defect and negligent-design claims, and denied class certification. The core reasoning for denying certification was that the proposed class was not ascertainable, because no reliable, manageable method existed to identify which individuals had the required smoking history, which would also prevent proper application of res judicata. Only the two tort claims survived, and they may proceed solely on an individual basis.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this mortgage loan dispute, plaintiff Kristen Lynn Miller sued Washington Mutual Bank, JPMorgan Chase, and California Reconveyance Company over a 2005 home loan of $640,000 secured by a deed of trust on her San Ramon property, alleging that the lender concealed the true interest rate and repayment terms, leading to notices of default and trustee's sale in 2010. She brought six claims including misrepresentation and fraud, rescission, injunction against wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, and RICO violations. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), allowing the first and fifth claims to proceed against Washington Mutual only, dismissing those claims against the other defendants, keeping the third claim intact, and dismissing the second, fourth, and sixth claims entirely. The decision applied the Iqbal plausibility standard, Rule 9(b) particularity requirements for fraud-based claims, the three-year statute of limitations for fraud with the discovery rule, and the need to allege a pattern of racketeering activity for RICO claims, while taking judicial notice of public mortgage and corporate documents.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a proposed class action by plaintiff S.D. Jadeja against Redflex Traffic Systems and related companies, challenging 'cost-neutral' or contingency clauses in their contracts with California municipalities for providing automated red-light cameras. Plaintiff alleged that these clauses created illegal financial incentives for the companies to issue citations, violating California Vehicle Code provisions and leading to claims of unfair competition under Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and unjust enrichment after he received and paid a citation from Menlo Park. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), finding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing. The core reasoning was that plaintiff failed to show a concrete, particularized injury in fact causally traceable to the defendants' conduct, as the municipality independently decided to issue the citation rather than the defendants prosecuting or directly affecting him, and no likelihood of future injury was established for injunctive relief.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a patent infringement action between Conceptus, Inc., seller of the Essure intrafallopian contraceptive device, and Hologic, Inc., seller of the competing Adiana system, both of which involve transcervical placement of devices to occlude fallopian tubes for permanent contraception. Conceptus moved for summary adjudication on infringement of claims 37 and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 6,634,861 by Hologic's product sales, on whether Essure practices those claims, on the absence of non-infringing alternatives, and on the timing of a hypothetical royalty negotiation; Hologic cross-moved on non-infringement and invalidity of claims 8, 37, and 38. The court granted in part and denied in part both motions, ruling that Hologic did not infringe claim 8, that there were no acceptable non-infringing alternatives in the damages period, and that any hypothetical royalty negotiation would have occurred in July 2009, while denying summary adjudication on infringement of claims 37 and 38 and on invalidity.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

This case is a putative class action against Chase Home Finance and JPMorgan Chase entities alleging improper forced purchases of flood insurance on home-equity lines of credit (HELOCs) under the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA). After an earlier order dismissed most claims but allowed a California Unfair Competition Law claim for "zero/zero" borrowers whose HELOC balances and credit lines were at zero when coverage was demanded, plaintiff Hofstetter moved to file a second amended complaint and add a second named plaintiff whose HELOC had a positive balance. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, permitting limited amendments to existing claims but refusing to add the new plaintiff because his distinct factual circumstances would introduce new legal questions, expand discovery, and change the course of the defense. The decision rested on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 standards weighing undue delay, prejudice, and futility, while noting that NFIA compliance questions differ for non-zero-balance borrowers and reserving class-certification issues for later.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case was a patent infringement lawsuit in which MShift, Inc. alleged that Digital Insight Corp., its partner Mobile Money Ventures, and thirteen bank and credit-union customers infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,950,881 through their mobile-banking system that converted wireless communications for mobile devices. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and denied MShift's motion for Rule 37 sanctions. Following claim construction of key terms and extensive discovery including hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, source code, and multiple depositions, the court found no genuine issues of material fact. No reasonable jury could conclude that the accused system infringed the patent, as it did not output content to mobile devices in the manner required by the claims, which addressed a language barrier between mobile devices and network sites by reformatting content using specific markup languages and style sheets.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a trademark infringement action in which Edge Games, Inc. sued Electronic Arts, Inc. over EA's use of the mark "Mirror’s Edge" for its video game franchise. Edge Games moved for a preliminary injunction to bar EA from using the mark during the litigation, claiming prior rights in various "EDGE" marks for video games. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent relief, that the equities tipped in its favor, or that an injunction served the public interest. Core reasoning included insufficient evidence that Edge Games was actively using its marks in commerce, doubts about the scale and legitimacy of its sales, and a low likelihood of consumer confusion given differences in the marks and EA's prominent branding.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case was an FTC enforcement action against Inc21.com Corporation, related companies, and the Lin brothers (plus a relief defendant) alleging that they used unauthorized LEC billing to charge millions of dollars for services on the phone bills of thousands of businesses and consumers, violating Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The court granted the FTC's summary judgment motion and denied defendants' cross-motion, permanently enjoining the practices and ordering nearly $38 million in restitution plus disgorgement of $434,000. The core reasoning was that an expert survey of over 1,000 "customers" showed with 95% confidence that 97% had not agreed to buy and only 5% even knew they were being billed, that the Lin brothers were aware of the fraud from multiple warnings yet continued the scheme, and that telemarketing calls reached non-business consumers in violation of TSR requirements.

business & regulatory

This class action case concerned Wells Fargo Bank's high-to-low resequencing of debit card transactions for posting purposes, a practice that converted what would have been a single overdraft into multiple ones and generated hundreds of millions in additional overdraft fees for the bank. The court, after a bench trial, ruled that the resequencing and related practices violated the unfair and fraudulent prongs of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. The decision rested on findings that the bank had adopted the bookkeeping method specifically to maximize fee revenue, exacerbated its effects through allied practices, and concealed the mechanics from customers despite knowing the impact. As a result, the court enjoined the resequencing practice for California accounts and ordered restitution to the certified class of depositors who incurred fees between 2004 and 2008.

business & regulatory

This case centers on disputes within Swingless Golf Club Corp., a company formed to develop and commercialize a patented pyrotechnic golf club invention that uses explosive charges instead of a traditional swing. After the founder's divorce and changes in board control, former contributors and shareholders asserted counterclaims of fraud, conversion, corporate waste, and breach of fiduciary duty against the corporation, its counsel, an investor, and the founder's ex-wife, alleging improper stock issuance, broken promises of equity, and self-dealing. The court granted the counterdefendants' motion for summary judgment on all four counterclaims. The decision rested on the absence of admissible evidence sufficient to raise triable issues of fact and on legal deficiencies in the claims, such as the failure to establish fiduciary duties owed to non-shareholders or to prove the required elements of fraud and conversion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by a California state prisoner convicted of second-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon, who challenged the Governor's reversal of the Board of Parole Hearings' 2006 grant of parole. The district court granted the petition, finding that the Governor's denial violated the prisoner's due process rights under California law. The court reasoned that, under the standard from In re Lawrence, the commitment offense alone did not provide "some evidence" of the prisoner's current dangerousness when weighed against his lack of prior criminal history, exemplary post-incarceration record, remorse, and psychological evaluations showing no ongoing threat. The state superior court's denial was deemed an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as interpreted through California's parole requirements.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Terra Insurance Company, a risk retention group, suing its former investment advisor NYLIM for allegedly failing to disclose material information about deteriorating credit markets and the economy between 2005 and 2008, including details related to its parent company's "quality tilt" investment strategy, which purportedly caused Terra to suffer millions in losses on its equity holdings. Terra claimed NYLIM fraudulently misrepresented or omitted this information at board meetings in 2007 and 2008, preventing the company from adjusting its investments. The court granted NYLIM's summary judgment motion in part as to punitive damages, finding the evidence insufficient to meet the clear and convincing standard, but denied the motion as to the remaining claims, determining that the evidence on elements like materiality, reliance, and causation was minimally sufficient to create triable issues under the applicable burden of proof. The decision rested on an analysis of deposition testimony, internal documents, and expert reports regarding the interrelation of credit and equity markets and NYLIM's duty to disclose.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between Boon Rawd Trading International Co. (BRTI), the exporter of Singha Beer, and Paleewong Trading Co. (PTC), its long-time U.S. importer and distributor, over whether PTC held exclusive importation rights in certain territories based on an alleged unwritten agreement formed by course of conduct. BRTI filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief that it could terminate the relationship freely, prompting PTC to assert seven counterclaims including breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and various torts arising from BRTI's alleged efforts to encroach on PTC's territory. The court granted in part and denied in part BRTI's motion to dismiss the counterclaims, finding that some claims failed to state viable causes of action under California law due to the lack of a written contract, statutes of limitations, or insufficient allegations, while others could proceed based on the pleaded facts regarding the implied exclusivity arrangement and termination terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an FTC enforcement action against Inc21.com Corp. and related defendants alleging they used LEC billing to place unauthorized charges for online services like business directories on thousands of consumers' telephone bills, a practice known as cramming. The court granted the FTC's motion for a preliminary injunction to halt the collections. The reasoning centered on evidence that Inc21's sales process—relying on overseas call centers, incomplete third-party verifications, and flawed customer confirmations—failed to ensure actual authorization, exploiting vulnerabilities in the LEC billing system where consumers rarely notice or scrutinize such charges. The opinion found a likelihood of success on the merits based on consumer declarations, billing data, and deficiencies in Inc21's verification records showing widespread unauthorized billing.

business & regulatory

This case involves a trademark dispute where U.S.-based Gallup, Inc. sued a Pakistani polling organization and its chairman for alleged infringement of its "Gallup" marks by operating a website under "Gallup Pakistan" that published polls cited by U.S. media. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and a permanent injunction. The core reasoning was that the defendant's activities were primarily extraterritorial, not sufficiently directed at the United States to fall under the Lanham Act, with insufficient evidence of infringement occurring within U.S. commerce, and the state law unfair competition claim also failed as a result.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether Autodesk could claim trademark rights in 'DWG' in connection with its software file format, specifically addressing defendant's argument that use of '.dwg' as a file extension was functional and thus unprotectable. At summary judgment, Autodesk disavowed any trademark claims based on the use of '.dwg' (or 'DWG') as a file extension and limited its claims to non-functional uses as a word mark in packaging, advertising, and marketing. The court accepted the disavowal as binding and held that file extensions perform a functional role in identifying file types for computers rather than serving as source identifiers in commercial transactions, making them ineligible for trademark protection under the functionality doctrine. The court further reasoned that even if users associate an extension with a particular company, its primary purpose remains functional and therefore outside the scope of the Lanham Act.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves an intellectual property dispute over patents, trademarks, and trade secrets related to a swingless golf club that uses explosives to launch balls. Swingless Golf Club Corporation sued former employees and competitors for allegedly unauthorized patent transfers and competing product sales, prompting counterclaims including fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, corporate waste, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the amended counterclaims, dismissing unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, one corporate waste claim, and corporate abuse due to insufficient pleadings and unrecognized causes of action under California law, while allowing fraud, conversion, another corporate waste claim, and breach of fiduciary duty to proceed based on adequately stated facts.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability