Headline News

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[11/18] Surrey v. TrueBeginnings
In a case of first impression in California involving an online matchmaking service, someone who presents him or herself to a business with the intent of purchasing its services or products, but becomes aware of that business's practice of charging different amounts for such services or products based on gender and thereafter does not purchase those services or products, is not aggrieved by that practice so as to have standing to sue for violations of the Unruh Act and the Gender Tax Repeal Act. The court adopts a bright-line rule that a person must tender the purchase price for a business's services or products in order to have standing to sue it for alleged discriminatory practices relating thereto.

[07/29] Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.
Denial of the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction against the merger of the Whole Foods and Wild Oats supermarket chains is reversed and remanded where: 1) the case was not moot despite the merger's having already occurred; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the market definition proposed by the FTC, in which Whole Foods and Wild Oats compete in the "premium, natural, and organic supermarkets" (PNOS) market, not against all supermarkets; 3) the FTC met the threshold requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction by demonstrating a likelihood of success on its claim that the two supermarkets did compete in the PNOS market; and 4) the district court was best positioned to balance the FTC's showing against the equities weighing against an injunction. (Amended and reissued opinion)

More...

Contracts

[11/19] McDonald v. Sun Oil Co.
In a suit arising out of the sale of a property containing a disused mercury mine, alleging negligence, contribution, breach of contract and fraud as a result of an alleged oral warranty that certain rock at the mine was free of mercury, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the state statute of repose did not render the negligence claim time-barred, because provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act amending state statute of limitations rules also applied to statutes of repose; 2) the contribution claim could not be brought without remedial action having been initiated by a state environmental agency; 3) the parol evidence rule was properly applied to find that the parties had reduced their entire agreement to writing and that no binding oral warranty existed; and 4) plaintiffs did not produce evidence of the alleged falsity of statements made by defendant.

[11/18] Dealer Computer Svcs., Inc. v. Dub Herring Ford
Following an arbitration decision granting award to defendant-dealerships and finding arbitration provisions found in various contracts between defendant-dealerships and plaintiff-computer software and hardware vendor did not preclude class arbitration, district court judgment in favor of defendant-dealerships is vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss where the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitration award because the matter was not ripe for judicial review.

More...

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[11/20] Vasquez v. State of California
In a taxpayer cause of action brought against the state for violating Proposition 139, known as the Prison Inmate Labor Initiative of 1990, by failing to collect and disburse payments due from joint venture programs with private employers within state prisons, award of attorneys' fees to plaintiff-company representive under the "private attorney general statute", Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, is affirmed where: 1) no rule applicable to this case required plaintiff first to attempt to settle the matter short of litigation; 2) the present case is not a catalyst case because plaintiff successfully obtained a stipulated injunction that was entered as a judgment and thus brought about a judicially recognized change in the parties' legal relationship; and 3) the "limitations on the catalyst theory" adopted in Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. did not properly apply here.

[07/29] Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.
Denial of the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction against the merger of the Whole Foods and Wild Oats supermarket chains is reversed and remanded where: 1) the case was not moot despite the merger's having already occurred; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the market definition proposed by the FTC, in which Whole Foods and Wild Oats compete in the "premium, natural, and organic supermarkets" (PNOS) market, not against all supermarkets; 3) the FTC met the threshold requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction by demonstrating a likelihood of success on its claim that the two supermarkets did compete in the PNOS market; and 4) the district court was best positioned to balance the FTC's showing against the equities weighing against an injunction. (Amended and reissued opinion)

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[11/21] McGhee v. Pottawattamie County, Iowa
In suits by two men convicted for murder and released over twenty years later, alleging constitutional violations by the original prosecutors and defamation by the current prosecutor, orders of the district court are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) defendant-current prosecutor was entitled to sovereign immunity on the defamation claim; and 2) with respect to defendants-original prosecutors, the district court erred in failing to conduct an analysis of the scope of their employment for sovereign immunity purposes distinct from the court's analysis of whether they were entitled to absolute immunity.

[11/19] Bregin v. Liquidebt Sys., Inc
In a suit alleging retaliatory discharge and tortious interference with employment, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not identify any illegal acts which he was asked to commit, for which a retaliation claim could be brought; 2) state law did not provide a whistleblower exception to the employment-at-will doctrine; and 3) plaintiff did not make out a claim for tortious interference.

More...